Advocates:
Mr. P. Chidambaram, Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. 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 (!) (!) (!) (!) .

2. 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 (!) (!) (!) (!) .

3. 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 (!) (!) (!) .

4. 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 (!) (!) (!) (!) .

5. 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 (!) (!) (!) .

6. 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 (!) (!) (!) (!) .

7. 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 (!) (!) (!) .

8. 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 (!) (!) .

9. 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 (!) .

10. 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.