MBBS- OCI Cardholders Before 2021 MEA Notification Eligible for Admission Under Indian National, Foreign National Category: Delhi HC

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court bench recently observed that Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) cardholders, who have obtained their OCI cards before the notification dated 04.03.2021 was issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, are eligible for MBBS admission either under the Indian National Category or the Foreign National Category.

Issuing a Gazette Notification on 04.03.2021, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) had stated that the OCI cardholders can secure admission to "only NRI (Non-Resident Indian) quota seats" in educational institutions based on all-India entrance tests such as the National Eligibility-Entrance Test (NEET). Due to this, the eligibility of OCI cardholders for "admission against any seat reserved exclusively for Indian citizens" ended.

Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that last year the Supreme Court had ruled that the Central Government rule of barring the OCI cardholders to apply for general category seats will be applied prospectively from the date on which the rule was implemented i.e. from 04.03.2021.

While considering a batch of pleas filed by OCI students challenging the 2021 notification, the Supreme Court bench of Justices A.S Bopanna and C.T Ravikumar had held that the concerned rule "shall apply prospectively only to persons who are born in a foreign country subsequent to 04.03.2021 i.e. the date of the notification and who seek for a registration as OCI cardholder from that date since at that juncture the parents would have a choice to either seek for citizenship by descent or to continue as a foreigner in the background of the subsisting policy of the Sovereign State."

Back then, while considering the Anushka Rengunthwar v. Union of India the Apex Court bench had held that the petitioners in all these cases and all other similarly placed OCI cardholders would be entitled to the rights and privileges that had been conferred on them earlier to the notification dated 04.03.2021. Therefore, the Apex Court bench had clarified back then that the rights of those who were already OCI cardholders until March 4, 2021 i.e. the date of notification would remain unaffected and their pre-existing rights would also be saved.

Also Read: NEET: Supreme Court declares Centre's order of barring OCI candidates from General seats to be applied prospectively

Later, a similar case was filed by an OCI cardholder who had challenged her classification under the Indian National Category. Back then, while revisiting its earlier judgment, the Supreme Court bench had found that the relief in the earlier case only gave the aggrieved party the benefit of being considered at par with Indian Citizens. Taking note of this, the Apex Court bench in the case of Pallavi v. Union of India had granted the petitioner the relief of being considered under the foreign national category.

A similar plea was recently filed by an MBBS aspirant before the Delhi High Court bench. Even though the petitioner was born in Tamil Nadu, she studied in the United States of America till 7th standard and acquired the citizenship of USA and obtained her OCI card on 12.07.2021. 

Her main grievance was regarding the allotment of seats under the quota reserved for the foreign nationals by AIIMS for admission to its MBBS course. He submitted that these seats were filled by certain students improperly and erroneously, who have obtained their OCI Card holding status before 04.03.2021. She argued that it violated the directions passed by the Supreme Court and adversely impacted her prospects of securing an admission under the Foreign National Category.

In the brochure-prospectus, AIIMS reserved 125 seats for Indian Nationals and 7 seats for Foreign Nationals. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the action of the authorities to consider the students who had acquired OCI Cards before 04.03.2021 under the Foreign National Category is illegal and contrary to the legal provisions governing the OCI Cardholders. He contended that by including these OCI Cardholders within the Foreign National Category, the authorities permitted ineligible candidates to occupy seats reserved mainly for Foreign Nationals, thereby depriving the petitioner of her legitimate right of fair consideration.

While considering the matter, the Delhi High Court bench noted that the legal question that involved these pleas was regarding the right of admission to the MBBS course for the OCI cardholders, who have obtained their OCI Cards before 04.03.2021. The question was whether such candidates were to be considered under the seats reserved against the Indian National Category or the Foreign National Category.

Even though the petitioner argued that AIIMS should have placed OCI cardholders before 04.03.2021 in the Indian National Category in view of the Supreme Court order in the case of Anushka Rengunthwar v. Union of India, the Delhi HC bench rejected the petitioner's contention that the Supreme Court in the Anushka case had barred the OCI cardholders who had received their OCI cards before 04.03.2021 from being given special consideration under the Indian National Category.

Referring to the Supreme Court's earlier directions, the Apex Court bench observed, "A synchronous reading of the two decisions in Anushka (supra) and Pallavi (supra) indicates a consistent principle, i.e. the legitimate expectation of an individual cannot be violated. Consequently, the Court has extended relief to the aggrieved parties by holding that any alteration of status shall be applied prospectively and granted them the benefit from the earlier Notification."

"Thus, from the decisions of the Supreme Court, it is evident that while the change in public policy was upheld as valid, the Court recognized that certain individuals had their legitimate expectations violated by the unforeseen amendments in the policy. As a remedy the Court extended the benefit to OCI Cardholders who obtained their Cards prior to 04.03.2021, allowing them to be treated at par with Indian Nationals under the regulations in force before the policy amendment," observed the Supreme Court.

"A conjoint reading of these decisions indicates that such OCI Cardholders retain the right to be treated as Indian Nationals for the purposes of admission and other benefits. There is no mandatory imposition or restriction on these individuals to avail this benefit. The OCI Cardholders were also at liberty to be subject to the new policy, which applies mandatorily to only those who have obtained their OCI status after 04.03.2021," the Court further noted.

It was further argued by the petitioner that the notification dated 21.08.2024 issued by AIIMS amended the terms of its original brochure-prospectus. However, it was observed by the HC bench that in its MBBS brochure-prospectus, AIIMS referred to the Anushka case. The brochure stated that all the terms and conditions applicable to Indian Nationals in the prospects will also apply to the OCI cardholders before 04.03.2021.

Further, the Court noted that the notice dated 21.08.2024 issued by AIIMS provided that OCI cardholders would be eligible in the Foreign Nationals Quota. "Therefore, it is evident that there is no apparent inconsistency between the original brochure-prospectus for the MBBS program and the impugned Notification dated 21.08.2024," the Court had observed at this outset.

"Upon consideration of the material facts and documents placed on record, the Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned Notification dated 21.08.2024, when read in conjunction with the brochure-prospectus issued for the Undergraduate MBBS programme, is purely clarificatory in nature. Although certain ambiguities may have arisen due to confusion among the respondents regarding the intent of the judgments in Anushka (supra) and Pallavi (supra), there has been no alteration or amendment to the original terms of the brochure-prospectus," the bench noted.

"Therefore, it is evident that the impugned Notification merely provided further clarification regarding the admission procedure. Moreover, the final clarification provided by the respondents seems to be in accordance with the judgments of the Supreme Court, in both letter and spirit. Accordingly, in the absence of any alteration to the admission process, issue number (b) is also decided in favor of the respondents," it further observed.

In parting remarks, the HC bench took significant responsibilities borne by AIIMS, an Institute of National Importance. The Court acknowledged that AIIMS, with its vast resources, responsibilities and prestigious standing, serves a dual role as both a premier healthcare provider and an esteemed education, producing some of the finest medical professionals in the country.

"Given these responsibilities and its prestigious standing, the respondent-AIIMS is expected to maintain the highest standards of clarity and precision, especially in matters as crucial as admissions. However, upon reviewing the documents submitted and the arguments advanced by the respondent-AIIMS, it is evident that both respondent-AIIMS and the respondent-MCC failed to present a coherent and unequivocal understanding of the extant rules and regulations regarding the admission process for OCI candidates. The brochure-prospectus lacked the clarity expected from an institution of this stature. The Court observes, with concern, that this is not an isolated incident. Instances of ambiguity in AIIMS’ admission guidelines have surfaced repeatedly, causing confusion and distress among aspiring students," it noted.

Although the bench acceded to the stand taken by AIIMS, it also noted that "such an exercise could have been entirely obviated had the respondent-AIIMS demonstrated a higher degree of diligence from the outset. The present litigation is not adversarial in nature, but rather one arising from interpretative concerns in an area of ambiguity, that stemmed directly from the ambiguity caused by the respondent-AIIMS. Had the relevant rules been articulated with greater clarity or had the respondent-AIIMS sought timely clarification from the appropriate authorities, this protracted legal process could have been avoided altogether. The absence of such diligence created a grey area in the admissions framework, prompting the petitioners to pursue claims they might not have otherwise entertained."

"These students should not be subjected to unnecessary mental anguish due to avoidable administrative lapses or procedural ambiguities. While the Court is inclined to view the lapse in clarity by the respondent-AIIMS as a bonafide error, it nevertheless reminds the respondent-AIIMS that given its national importance and the respect it commands, they must exhibit greater diligence and coherence in formulating and communicating its policies. Such diligence was imperative to uphold the standards of transparency that befit an Institution of National Importance," noted the Court, while dismissing the plea.

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/delhi-hc-bench-258257.pdf

Also Read: Gujarat HC junks plea filed by OCI Cardholder Seeking MBBS Admission in General Category