Supreme Court Allows Writ Petition for OCI Candidate in NEET Admission Case — Upholds Rights of OCI Cardholders. The court ruled that the notification dated 04.03.2021 was arbitrary and did not save accrued rights of OCI cardholders, thus allowing the petitioner to participate in the admission process.

  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the rejection of her candidature for a Post Graduate medical seat after being allowed to appear in the NEET examination. The petitioner, an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholder, participated in the NEET examination and secured a high rank. However, she was informed that she would be treated as an Indian National just before the first round of counseling, which significantly reduced her chances of admission. The petitioner contended that this change was unfair and arbitrary, particularly in light of a prior judgment that ruled against the retrospective application of a similar notification. The court analyzed the implications of the notification dated 04.03.2021, which withdrew certain privileges from OCI cardholders, and found that it did not save accrued rights. The court held that the notification should apply prospectively and affirmed the rights of OCI cardholders who had obtained their status prior to the notification. Consequently, the court directed that the petitioner be considered for remaining counseling rounds for PG Medical seats, ensuring her eligibility based on her performance in the NEET test. The writ petition was allowed without costs.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Right to Education - OCI Cardholder Eligibility - Article 32 of the Constitution - The court held that the notification dated 04.03.2021, which altered the eligibility of OCI cardholders for NEET admissions, was arbitrary and did not save accrued rights, thus affecting the petitioner's right to participate in the admission process. The court emphasized that the notification should operate prospectively and not retroactively, ensuring that rights conferred prior to the notification remain intact (Paras 59-60).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the notification dated 04.03.2021, which altered the eligibility criteria for OCI cardholders in NEET admissions, was arbitrary and retroactive.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the writ petition, directing that the petitioner be considered for remaining counseling rounds for PG Medical seats based on her NEET performance, affirming the rights of OCI cardholders who obtained their status prior to the notification dated 04.03.2021.

Law Points

  • Article 32
  • Citizenship Act
  • 1955
  • NEET eligibility
  • OCI cardholder rights
  • retrospective application of notifications
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2023 LawText (SC) (09) 176

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 642 of 2023

2023-09-01

S. Ravindra Bhat, Aravind Kumar

Vinay Navare, Atul Kumar

Pallavi

Union of India & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging rejection of candidature for PG medical seat.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought to be considered for admission to PG medical courses.

Filing Reason

Rejection of candidature based on change of status from OCI to Indian National.

Previous Decisions

The court had previously ruled against the retrospective application of notifications affecting OCI cardholders.

Issues

Whether the notification dated 04.03.2021 was arbitrary and retroactive. Whether the rights of OCI cardholders were adequately protected under the law.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the change in status was unfair and arbitrary, affecting her admission chances. Respondent contended that the notification was valid and aimed to protect the rights of Indian citizens.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the notification dated 04.03.2021 was arbitrary as it did not save accrued rights of OCI cardholders, and thus should operate prospectively, allowing those who obtained OCI status before the notification to retain their eligibility for NEET admissions.

Judgment Excerpts

The impugned notification dated 04.03.2021 is based on a policy and in the exercise of the statutory power of a Sovereign State. The right which was granted to the OCI cardholders in parity with the NRIs was to appear for the Pre-Medical Entrance Test along with all other similar candidates.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed a writ petition after being informed of her change in status from OCI to Indian National just before the first round of counseling for PG medical seats.

Acts & Sections

  • Citizenship Act, 1955: Section 7B
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Challenging Selection Process for Assistant Registrars Due to Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties. Selection Process Found Flawed for Relying Solely on Interviews Without Considering Written Examination Marks.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Remand Order in Tribal Land Restoration Case — Sale Deed Valid as Parties Were Not Scheduled Tribes at Time of Transfer. Status of being Scheduled Tribe must exist at time of transfer; subsequent r...