Back
Juhi Katwa's Plea for OBC Reservation in Rejected by
In a decisive ruling, the at Dharwad held that the Non-Resident Indian (NRI) quota in NEET-UG counselling is a , and a candidate cannot claim OBC or any other reservation within it. The of Justice M. Nagaprasanna and Justice Hema Kulkarni dismissed a filed by 18-year-old NEET aspirant Juhi Katwa, who sought to retain her while applying under the .
The Quest for a Dual Benefit
The petitioner, Juhi Katwa, had applied for MBBS/BDS/B.Sc. Nursing seats through the NEET-UG 2026 counselling process under the NRI (Sponsored) category, backed by sponsorship from her paternal aunt. However, she was placed in the during counselling. Katwa approached the High Court arguing that her OBC/2A category status, being a matter of birth and statutory certification, should remain available to her even within the . She feared that being treated as a candidate would effectively deny her a seat.
Arguments and Counter-Arguments
Represented by , the petitioner submitted that the should carry a reservation for OBC or other categories, and that she should not be placed in the . On the other hand, , appearing for the , , and , pointed out a critical fact: the petitioner had secured only 48.33% marks, far below the threshold required for consideration under the . This submission undercut the very basis of the petition.
Legal Analysis: The is Unreserved
The Court examined the NEET-UG 2026 Information Bulletin and Counselling Scheme, particularly Frequently Asked Question No. 36 . The answer to that question states: “NRI/OCI/PIO candidates will be shown seats reserved for the NRI category and General Seats of and Seats of . One Candidate can only opt for one type of reservation.” (emphasis added by the Court).
The Bench held that the operates as a separate, standalone category. It noted: “The is a separate quota and 15% of the seats are reserved for NRIs. The nuances of such reservation are found in the brochure that is notified in terms of law, which clearly indicates that NRI can only be under the .”
The Court rejected the argument that SC, ST, or OBC reservation could be layered onto the . It observed: “With this being the case, the petitioner is wanting us to interpret that the reservation of either SC/ST/OBC or otherwise should be straight away made applicable even to the NRI, so that the petitioner could get in under the . This submission is in the light of the petitioner not only not crossing the threshold bar of the marks required to be obtained under the , which is unreserved, but also the petitioner cannot now want us to interpret that the should now be addressed with a reservation for her to get into the counselling.”
Key Observations
The Court’s pivotal reasoning was encapsulated in its reading of the counselling scheme:
- “The is a separate quota and 15% of the seats are reserved for NRIs. The nuances of such reservation are found in the brochure that is notified in terms of law, which clearly indicates that NRI can only be under the .”
- “One candidate can opt for only one type of reservation.” (citing FAQ No. 36)
The Final Verdict
Finding no merit in the petition, the dismissed the . The order was passed on , at the itself, as the counselling process was concluding that day. The ruling reaffirms that candidates opting for the must compete in the for those 15% seats and cannot combine it with . The judgment also underscores that the counselling brochure’s FAQs form an integral part of the scheme and will be strictly enforced by the courts.
