New Delhi: The Supreme Court Tuesday upheld a 10 September Punjab and Haryana High Court ruling that dismissed a petition challenging the exclusion of relatives of non-resident Indians (NRIs) from the definition of foreign Indian students (FIS) in the common prospectus for MBBS admissions issued by the Chandigarh administration.
Dismissing a petition challenging the 10 September order, a three-judge bench, led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, said, “We see no reason to entertain the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.” Article 32 guarantees citizens the right to move the top court to enforce their fundamental rights.
“The petitioner would be at liberty to pursue his remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution before the high court,” the SC bench, including Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, said. The HC can issue writs to enforce rights under Article 226.
Moreover, the Supreme Court in its judgment called out the misuse of NRI quotas, terming the expansion of the ambit of NRI quotas a “fraud” that is a “money-spinning machine” in government-run colleges.
“This is completely a fraud. And this is what we are doing with our education system !… We will affirm the high court judgment. We must stop this NRI quota business now. The judges know what they are dealing with. The high court has dealt with the case threadbare,” the CJI said.
This is not the first time the Supreme Court has made such an observation.
In its 2005 ruling in P.A. Inamdar & others vs. the state of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court expressed similar sentiments, saying only genuine NRIs should use NRI seats during admissions and that merit could not be eliminated.
On Tuesday, the bench observed that a broadened ambit of NRI quotas would create the possibility of distant relatives of NRIs in foreign countries getting admissions ahead of candidates of merit in the country, saying “Look at the deleterious consequences… the candidates who have three times higher marks will lose admission (in NEET-UG courses).”
Saying it will stop this “business”, the Supreme Court said the Punjab and Haryana High Court was “absolutely right” in its 10 September decision.
The case: Sridam Anand vs. Chandigarh administration
The petitioner, Sridam Anand, wanted admission to the Chandigarh administration-run MBBS course of the Government Medical College and Hospital (GMCH) this year. After the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET-UG) 2024, the admissions prospectus was made available online on 9 August, and the last date for submitting application forms and fees online was 16 August.
Three days before the last date of submitting online applications, Anand approached the high court about the common prospectus for admission to GMCH, Chandigarh; Dr Harvansh Singh Judge Institute of Dental Sciences & Hospital, Chandigarh; and Homeopathic Medical College, Chandigarh.
His petition challenged Clause A(6) of the prospectus, issued by the Chandigarh administration. For admission to the MBBS courses, Clause A(6) restricted the definition and scope of foreign Indian students to exclude relatives of NRIs.
According to the petition, the common prospectus laid down separate criteria for admitting foreign Indian students to the MBBS and Bachelor of Dental Sciences (BDS) courses. The petitioner pointed out that the relatives of NRIs could get admitted to the BDS course but not to the MBBS course, though it is the Chandigarh administration which runs both courses.
The petition, therefore, claimed discrimination between the MBBS and BDS students to be admitted under the 15% reservation for NRI candidates, despite a common admission form. There was “no plausible justification”, it said, for different requirements for admissions to these courses under the NRI category.
The petition argued that the Chandigarh administration had no power to exclude the relatives of NRI from the definition of FIS, citing Entry 66 of List I of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution, which pertains to the “coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions”.
However, the Chandigarh administration, which falls under the Punjab government, claimed that GMCH, Chandigarh, is a distinct college affiliated with Panjab University, imparting education in MBBS courses. On the other hand, Dr Harvansh Singh Judge Institute of Dental Sciences & Hospital is a distinct college at a separate location, a constituent of the Panjab University.
The state government underlined that for admission to the BDS courses, the 15% quota for foreign Indian students or NRIs was according to norms followed by the Panjab University.
Moreover, it said that the Chandigarh administration took a “policy decision” to restrict the admission scope of students to MBBS courses to include only those foreign Indian students who fulfilled the requisite criteria. Since the decision fell into the realm of policy, it argued, the scope of judicial review was limited.
Also Read: ‘Erudite & courageous’ AG Noorani’s ‘rare genius’ as lawyer & scholar celebrated at memorial meeting
What the HC ruled
In its 10 September judgment, a bench of Chief Justice of the Punjab & Haryana High Court Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal said the Chandigarh administration issued a common prospectus for admission to the three colleges, but the colleges were “separate and distinct”.
Finding “no common thread” between the three colleges, except that they were government institutions, the court said the “issuance of a common prospectus cannot be the sole reason to hold that the criteria for admitting the FIS/NRIs should be identical”.
Saying that courts, time and again, have adversely commented on admissions under the NRI category, the bench pointed out that for admissions to the MBBS course, the Chandigarh administration undertook a policy decision to restrict the entry of candidates while narrowing down eligibility criteria for foreign Indian students.
In its 23-page ruling, the two-judge bench reasoned the government’s decision “to exclude the blood relations of the NRIs” was to allow the entry of only foreign Indian students who have genuinely resided in another country.
Underlining this was a “conscious decision taken by the (Chandigarh) administration” which fell into the realm of policy, the court said the scope of interference or judicial review in such cases remained “extremely limited”.
The court also said the petitioner failed to draw its attention to the violation of any provision of the Constitution or its statutes.
Finally, the bench said it did not find the distinction between foreign Indian students and NRI students for the MBBS and BDS admissions to be “discriminatory” — the colleges were separate and taught distinct courses.
Refusing to quash Clause A(6) of the prospectus issued by the Chandigarh Union Territory, the court said the Centre’s power to give directions to the state government remains confined to the scope of Entry No. 66 of List I. However, Entry No. 25 of List III does enable the state government to make laws for education, including technical education, medical education and universities, subject to the provisions of Entry No. 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I, the court said.
The court also cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in P.A. Inamdar vs. the state of Maharashtra (2005) that “more often than not admission under the NRI category is a misnomer” and “reservation under this category is amenable to abuse by less meritorious students who can afford to pay a huge fee”.
Also Read: Kovind panel’s roadmap for ‘one nation, one election’ & the constitutional amendments required
What the Inamdar case was
On 12 August 2005, a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court, led by then-CJI R.C. Lahoti, held that “limited reservation of seats in unaided professional colleges not exceeding 15% may be available to NRIs dependents on the discretion of the management”.
However, this would be subject to two conditions. First, such seats should be utilised in a bonafide manner — by NRIs only and their children or wards — and second, within this quota, merit should not be completely set aside. Besides this, the court noted that it’s “common knowledge that some of the institutions grant admissions to a certain number of students under such a quota by charging a higher amount of fees”.
The court said that usually, neither the students who get admissions under this category nor their parents are NRIs. “In effect and reality, under this category, less meritorious students but who can afford to bring more money, get admission.”
It also pointed out that people of Indian origin, who migrated to other countries, have a desire to bring their children back to their country, due to a host of reasons such as lesser expenditure, and a desire to reunite them with their motherland, among others.
(Edited by Madhurita Goswami)
Also Read: Karnataka judge’s remarks have riled legal community & HC live proceedings now come with disclaimer