Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 48834
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J
DEBORAH JESSICA JACOB (MINOR) – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 29002 OF 2025
For the Appellant: SRI.NIREESH MATHEW, SRI.VIVEK VENUGOPAL, SRI.BABU JOSE, SRI.GAJENDRA SINGH RAJPUROHIT, SRI.ATHUL POULOSE, SRI.AKHIL GEORGE
For the Respondents: SRI. P.G. PRAMOD, SRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR
The court ruled that residency criteria based solely on birthplace may be overly restrictive and that procedural compliance is essential for admission eligibility.
Headnote:(A) The Constitution of India - Right to Equality - Fundamental Rights - The petitioner challenged the restrictive categorization in the KEAM Prospectus on the basis of place of birth. The Court examined whether this restriction violated the principles of inclusivity and fair opportunity. The petitioner’s ancestral ties to Kerala and the issuance of a Nativity Certificate were central to the argument. (Paras 2 and 5)
(B) Administrative Law - The dubiety in applying birth-based criteria against wider documentation was discussed. The Court noted the procedural shortcomings of the petitioner in submitting required documents timely. Thus, the legitimacy of the process and the petitioner’s delays were emphasized. The court ultimately ruled that the petitioner did not meet the criteria outlined in the Prospectus. (Paras 9 and 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, while born in Qatar, asserts her native roots in Kerala through her grandparents and a Nativity Certificate but faced categorization challenges under KEAM 2025. The defect memo cited place of birth as a disqualifying factor.
Findings of Court:
The principles of nativity were discussed, focusing on the requirements of the prospectus and the validity of the Nativity Certificate. The petitioner's delays in documentation submission affected her claim.
Issues: Key issues included the legality of the Prospectus’s restrictive criteria in establishing nativity and the petitioner’s compliance with submission timelines.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prospectus's stringent criteria for determining residence may be overly restrictive and noted non-compliance by the petitioner, leading to dismissal.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's claim of nativity based on ancestral ties. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments against birthplace-only criteria for nativity. (Para 4 , 5 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's observations on procedural compliance. (Para 9) |
| 4. dismissal based on non-compliance with submission guidelines. (Para 10) |
J U D G M E N T
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The petitioner, who has attended KEAM-
2025 Examination for admission to MBBS Course, seeks to command the 2nd respondent to treat the petitioner as a “Keralite” for the purpose of KEAM 2025 Medical Stream Admissions based on the valid Nativity Certificate issued by the Village Officer.
2. The petitioner states that she is a native of Kerala and has appeared in the 2025 Examination for Admission to MBBS. Ext.P1 is her Score Card. The petitioner has been placed in the category of Non-Keralite.
Clause 6.1 of the KEAM Prospectus 2025 categorizes candidates into Keralite, Non-Keralite Category I and Non- Keralite Category II. Non-Keralite Category II are not eligible for reservation benefits and fee concessions. Clause 6.1.1 of the Prospectus lays down a restrictive criteria. This Clause restricts eligibility to those whose own or whose parent’s place of birth is in Kerala.
3. The petitioner was born and educated in Qatar. Her parents were Indian citizens. However, the petitioner maintains strong ancestral, cultural and emotional ties with Kerala. The petitioner’s grandparents were born in Kerala and had been residing at Peroorkada, Thiruvananthapuram. Marriage of the petitioner’s parents was conducted in Kerala. The petitioner’s father holds a valid Indian Driving Licence. He is registered as a Medical Practitioner with the Travancore Cochin Medical Council. The family members hold Indian Passport and Aadhaar Cards.
The petitioner and her family frequently visit Kerala.
4. The petitioner submitted an application for Nativity Certificate and the Village Officer issued Ext.P4 Nativity Certificate dated 18.07.2024 certifying that the petitioner is a native of Kerala. However, when the petitioner uploaded Ext.P4 Certificate on the Portal, a defect memo appeared stating that the result is withheld on the ground that the place of birth in the Nativity Certificate is not in Kerala. The petitioner states that the results have been later published, but the petitioner is placed in the category of Non-
Keralite II.
5. The petitioner states that Clause 6.1.1 of the Prospectus to the extent it restricts the definition of Keralite solely based on place of birth based documentation and ignoring the other valid forms of establishing nativity, is unreasonable and unconstitutional. Akshaya Centres and other online portals of the State Government permit issuance of Nativity Certificate based on documents such as Birth Certificate, Ration Card, and school certificates of parents or grandparents, thereby recognising a broader and inclusive concept of nativity. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is compellable to treat the petitioner as a Keralite for the purpose of 2025 Medical Stream Admissions based on the valid Nativity Certificate issued by the Village Officer. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader representing the respondents.
7. The argument of the petitioner is that though her place of birth is Qatar, her parents and grandparents have strong bonding with the Kerala. The petitioner’s father holds a Driving Licence issued from Kerala. Parents of the petitioner hold Indian Passport. The petitioner’s father is registered with the Travancore Cochin Medical Council. The petitioner is not included in Non-Keralite I category on the ground that neither the petitioner nor the parents are born in Kerala.
8. Clause 6.1.1 of the Prospectus provides that only those whose own or whose parent’s place of birth is in Kerala alone will be treated as natives of Kerala. According to the petitioner, the said rule goes against Rule 226 of the Kerala Land Revenue Manual and the E-governance
