HC slams US Born Medico who misrepresented as Indian to obtain Govt Quota MBBS seat, allows Exit only after paying NRI fees

Bengaluru: Taking note of the fact that a US-born student misrepresented herself as an Indian to get enrolled to MBBS course under a government-quota seat, the Karnataka High Court recently heavily slammed the concerned doctor.

The concerned doctor had approached the HC bench after being denied the exit permit to go to USA to pursue further studies. However, considering the facts of the case, the HC bench slammed the doctor and remarked, "The petitioner has shamelessly resorted to falsehood and achieved her goals by unethical means as indicated hereinabove. Curious enough, the petitioner is not even wanting to pursue her career in this country, having secured benefits throughout her career contending that she is an Indian."

However, considering the fact that the petitioner is a student, who was unaware of the consequences of law, the bench has directed the Union of India and the Bureau of Immigration to not take any coercive action against the petitioner if she pays the MBBS fees for five years at the rate charged to NRI/OCI candidates.

"The respondent Nos.1 and 3 shall issue exit permit subject to the following conditions: a. The Petitioner shall *pay the entire fee for the course - MBBS course in terms of what is observed in the course of the order," the bench comprising Justice M Nagaprasanna mentioned.

The petitioner was born on 05.02.1997 in Nashville, Tennessee, USA. On the birth of the petitioner, the parents of the petitioner registered her birth before the Indian Embassy in USA. Later, the petitioner was also issued a passport of USA. On the strength of the said passport which was valid till 12-09-2004, the petitioner entered India on a tourist Visa on 23.06.2003, at 6 years of age.

Consequently, she got admitted for Primary Schooling and completed her education up to 12th Standard or the Pre-University. Back in 2015, she appeared in Common Entrance test (CET) by Karnataka Examinations Authority by declaring her nationality to be an Indian. 

She secured 571st rank and got admitted to Mandya Institute of Medical Sciences under the Government Quota seats and completed her MBBS education. Meanwhile, the petitioner did not renounce her citizenship or nationality of USA after becoming a major. 

In fact, she applied for a fresh passport with the US Consulate General, which accepted her application and granted a passport of USA valid till 16.03.2022. After getting the concerned passport on 17.03.2021, the petitioner filed an application before the Bureau of Immigration for grant of exit permit.

However, her application for exit permit to pursue further studies in the USA got rejected and therefore, the petitioner approached the High Court bench. The counsel for the petitioner contended that when the petitioner had come to India back in 2003 she was a minor and the mother was a single parent. Further, the counsel submitted that the petitioner was unaware of consequences of either the Citizenship Act of the country or nuances of the passport.

Although the petitioner's counsel admitted that she participated in the CET 2015 as an Indian and secured a seat and completed her MBBS, he further submitted that in terms of Section 4(1)(b) and 4(1A) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (‘the Act’ for short) the petitioner is deemed to be declared to be Indian as the birth of the petitioner was registered in the Indian Consulate at USA.

Further, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that since 2003 she has been residing in India and therefore, on the basis of domicile she is entitled to a citizenship and a consequent exit permit to move out of the country and pursue her career in USA. The refusal to issue exit permit or any other no objection would take away the fundamental right of the petitioner to travel, argued the counsel for the petitioner.

On the other hand, the Deputy Solicitor General of India refuted the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel and pointed out that the petitioner did not come into India on the strength of any passport issued by this country but on a tourist Visa which expired in the year 2003 and on a passport of USA which expired in the year 2004.

Referring to this, the Government counselor argued that the stay of the petitioner from 2003 after expiry of tourist Visa is unlawful and contrary to the Foreigners Act, 1946.

"By no stretch of imagination the petitioner can claim to be a citizen of this country, more so, in the light of the fact that she is declared to be a citizen of USA in the year 2021 and a passport being US citizen is also issued to the petitioner," submitted the Deputy Solicitor General of India.

After considering the matter and taking note of the submissions made by both the parties, the HC bench referred to the Citizenship Act, 1955 and noted,

"Section 4(1-A) depicts that a minor who is a citizen of India by virtue of Section 4 and is also a citizen of any other country shall cease to be citizen of India, if he or she would not renounce citizenship or nationality of another country, within six months of attaining full age. The attainment of full age would mean becoming a Major. Therefore, in terms of the afore-quoted mandate of the statute, though the petitioner is born outside India cannot be conferred citizenship by descent as she has not renounced the citizenship of the USA within six months as mandated under the statute."

The bench noted that the petitioner became a major on 05.02.2015 and six months expired on 04.08.2015. At this outset, the HC bench observed,

"The petitioner did not renounce citizenship of USA, for her to be declared to be a deemed citizen of this country by descent in terms of Section 4 (1-A) supra. The petitioner having no legal right / citizenship to stay in the country does not make any effort to continue the career in the country but applies for re-issuance of passport by the USA contending that she was born in USA; she was a citizen of USA and her passport had expired."

"Refusal of exit permit is due to unauthorized stay of the petitioner in this country. The unauthorized stay is after expiry of six months on 17-12-2003 as being a minor with US passport she could stay on that Visa only until the said date," further noted the HC bench.

Slamming the petitioner for projecting herself as an Indian national, the bench observed,

"What is reprehensible is that, the petitioner throughout has projected herself to be an Indian, on such projection, completes her second year Pre-University course, applies for CET-2015,secures admission under a Government quota as an Indian, thus takes away the seat of a genuine Indian who would have secured the said seat under the Government quota, pursued the career on the qualification so acquired."

"The petitioner does not stop at that, on her desire to continue higher education and settle down in the US on a basic qualification of MBBS acquired in this country, on the strength of the aforesaid falsehood, gets her passport of the US renewed/reissued. The petitioner now seeks to project that she is deemed to be a citizen of this country and in the same breath, seeks citizenship of US on the ground that she was never a citizen of this country. In no manner under the Act, the petitioner can claim to be a citizen of this country either by descent or domicile as she comes into the country on a tourist Visa, therefore, the stay of the petitioner is on the face of it, unauthorised. Action ought to have been initiated against the petitioner under the Foreigners Act, 1946," it further noted.

However, taking note of the fact that the petitioner, being a student, was unaware of the consequences of law, the bench mentioned in the order,

"But she is a student, who would not be aware of the consequences of law or consequences of the aforesaid breach and falsehood. Therefore, this Court would direct the respondents – the Union of India and the Bureau of Immigration, to hold their coercive arm of law to be stretched upon the petitioner in the peculiar facts of this case, subject to the condition that the petitioner would pay all the fees, for all the five years of the MBBS course at the rate of the fee that would be charged to NRI/overseas citizen of India treating the petitioner’s admission to be in that category and the fee to be paid to the State, taking a lenient view of the matter."

"Therefore, the exit permit is directed to be issued subject to the aforesaid condition, all, again, owing to peculiar facts of the case and the conduct of the petitioner misrepresenting herself to be an Indian, snatching away the career of an Indian. In the aforesaid circumstances, if the petitioner is left off the hook without any condition, it would be putting a premium on the misrepresentation that she has made throughout calling herself to be an “Indian Citizen”," it further noted.

To read the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/karnataka-hc-order-205570.pdf

Also Read: NEET must for BHMS Admissions: Karnataka HC