Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA, HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
ANUSHKA RENGUNTHWAR – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
W.P.(C) No.-000891 - 2021
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The petitioners are Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) cardholders who have pursued their education primarily in India and have a longstanding connection with the country, including familial ties and residence over many years (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The petitioners relied on notifications issued in 2005, 2007, and 2009, which conferred rights on OCI cardholders, including parity with Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) in various fields such as education and profession, and permitted them to compete for all seats in educational institutions, including medical entrance exams (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The impugned notification dated 04.03.2021 altered these rights by restricting OCI cardholders to only NRI seats or supernumerary seats, excluding them from competing for seats reserved for Indian citizens, despite their long-standing residence and educational pursuits in India (!) (!) (!) .
The petitioners argue that this change violates their constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 21, as it constitutes arbitrary discrimination and retrogression of rights conferred earlier, especially since many have spent their entire educational careers in India and have structured their lives based on the earlier rights (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The petitioners also contend that the withdrawal or restriction of these rights without proper application of mind, rational basis, or consideration of their legitimate expectations amounts to arbitrariness and non-application of the doctrine of non-retrogression (!) (!) (!) .
The respondents justify the notification by citing sovereign powers, the need to prioritize Indian citizens' rights due to limited seats, and the policy of treating OCI cardholders at par with NRIs rather than Indian citizens. They emphasize the state's discretion in immigration and educational policies, and the need for reasonable classification supported by the statutory provisions (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court acknowledged that the powers exercised by the state in issuing the notification are within its sovereign domain, but emphasized that the manner of exercise must demonstrate application of mind, rational nexus to the purpose, and absence of arbitrariness. The court found that the specific portion of the notification restricting OCI cardholders to only NRI seats was issued without adequate consideration and was in effect retroactive, affecting rights already conferred and acted upon by the petitioners (!) (!) (!) .
The court declared that the impugned portion of the notification shall operate prospectively only from the date of its issuance (04.03.2021), thereby protecting the rights of OCI cardholders who had already availed themselves of the earlier rights (!) (!) .
The court held that OCI cardholders who had already participated in the admission process, secured seats, or completed their courses are entitled to the rights conferred on them prior to the notification, and their participation and subsequent actions shall be regularized (!) .
Overall, the court emphasized the importance of rational decision-making, non-retrogression, and protecting legitimate expectations, while recognizing the state's sovereign powers. The decision underscores that rights conferred through statutory notifications should not be arbitrarily withdrawn or restricted without proper application of mind and rational nexus to the purpose (!) (!) (!) .
These points collectively reflect the court's reasoning, the constitutional principles involved, and the outcome regarding the validity and prospective operation of the impugned notification.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners are oci cardholders (Para 1) |
| 2. court discusses rights (Para 3) |
1. The petitioners in all these petitions are the Overseas Citizens of India card holders. They are all students who have just reached the full age or are below this age. All the petitioners are aspiring to become Doctors by pursuing the MBBS course by securing admission through NEET selection process and thereafter the post-graduation as also the super specialty in the field of medicine. Some of them are also seeking to pursue post-graduation and also a super specialty. For the purpose of narration of facts, the averments as put forth in W.P.(C) No.891 of 2021 which was taken as the lead case is noted. The petitioners contend that they have been putting in all efforts and were preparing to appear for the NEET-UG examinations based on the right which was available to them under the notifications dated 11.04.2005 and 05.01.2009. Through the said notifications, the Overseas Citizens of India (‘OCI’ for short) cardholders were given the right of parity with Non-Resident Indians (‘NRIs’ for short) in respect of the facilities as notified, including in the field of education, who in turn had the parity with Indian Citizens. Through the notification dated 05.01.2009, the said right to education in India was also extended further, to appear for the All India Pre-Medical Test or such other tests to make them eligible for admission in pursuance to the provisions contained in the relevant acts. In view of such right being extended to the OCI Cardholders by respondent No.1 in exercise of the powers under Section 7B (1) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (“Act 1955” for short), the petitioners were also assured of appearing for the NEET-UG exam so as to compete to secure a seat to pursue the medical course.
2. Such right was available to the petitioners from a point almost immediately after their birth, since the petitioners in these petitions were born in the year 2003 onwards. Except for the fact that they were born in a foreign country, they had lived in this country for periods ranging from 10 to 15/17 years. In that view, the entire educational career was pursued in India, including the 12th standard so as to qualify for the NEET-UG examinations and MBBS Course. In fact, in most of the cases, both parents of the petitioners herein are Indian nationals and in any case, one of them is an Indian national. Even in cases where both the parents are OCI Cardholders, the children have lived most of their life in India since their roots remain to be in India where grandparents and family are here.
3. When this was the position the respondent No.1 issued the notification dated 04.03.2021 in exercise of the power under Section 7B (1) of Act, 1955 whereunder the existing right of appearing for the Entrance Exams to compete with Indian Citizens for the seat was taken away and restricted the admission only as against the seats reserved for the Non-Resident Indians or for supernumerary seats. The proviso to clause 4(ii) of the impugned notification dated 04.03.2021 in fact clarifies that the OCI cardholders shall not be eligible for admission against any seat reserved exclusively for Indian Citizens. This is done so, by providing an explanation that the OCI Cardholder is a foreign national holding passport from a foreign country and is not a citizen of India.
4. The petitioners, therefore, contend that such notification falls foul of the Doctrine of Non -Retrogression since the right which was being bestowed from the year 2005, instead of progressing and maturing to be a better right was being curtailed and reversed. The petitioners also contend that the right guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India is violated since such right is available to “any person”, even if one is not a citizen of India. In the instant facts, the petitioners have no quarrel with the validity of Sections 7B (1), 7D, 8(1) and 9(1) of Act, 1955. The petitioners whi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
