'NRI Quota Fraud Must Come To An End': Supreme Court Upholds P&H High Court's Order Quashing Widened Definition Of 'NRI' In MBBS Admissions

The Supreme Court today (September 24), while dismissing the challenge to Punjab and Haryana High Court's quashing the Punjab Government's notification to broaden the ambit of NRI Quota in medical admission, orally observed that such 'fraud' must stop as it gave way to backdoor entries at the cost of meritorious candidates. 

The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing three petitions challenging the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which quashed the August 20 notification widening the definition of Non-Resident Indian for MBBS admissions. 

As per the impugned notification, the Government of Punjab broadened the meaning NRI candidate, bringing into its fold distant relatives of candidates such as uncles, aunts, grandparents and cousins. The High Court bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal on September 11, struck down the notification, terming it to be 'unjustified' as it defeated the original purpose of NRI Quota - to give genuine NRIs a chance to come to India to study. 

The CJI observed that the present modification to the admissions to state medical colleges came after the prospectus for medical admissions was issued on August 9. The subsequent widening of the definition of NRI was frowned upon by the CJI: 

"We will dismiss this, let us put a lid on this,...we have to put an end to the fraud, the HC order is absolutely right. This NRI Business is nothing but a fraud and look at the way the state of Punjab did this! After the notification of 9th August, on the last date which is August 19- 20th you issue a fresh notification expanding the category "ward".....look at the deleterious consequences, the candidates who have 3 times higher marks will lose admission and all these people will come from the backdoor." 

 The CJI referred to the decision in P.A. Inamdar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra to reiterate the settled principle of law. The Court in PA Inamdar clarified that the seats reserved for NRIs should be bonafidely used by genuine NRIs only and in giving admissions under NRI Quota, the element of merit cannot be given a go by. 

"We should not lend our authority to something which is a patent fraudulent category," 

Senior Advocate Abhimanyu Bhandari for the original petitioner before the High Court pointed out that the lead petitioner in the present matter has scored 202 out 720 marks, while non-NRI general category candidate scored 637 out of 720 marks. He stressed how the Constitution bench in P.A Inamdar "frowned upon the fact that this is nothing but only a way for the people to use money power for people to get in." 

Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat appearing for the petitioners(before the Supreme Court challenigng the HC order) argued that the wide definition of NRI in admissions is being used by other States such as Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Chandigarh and the State of Punjab was so far administering the narrower definition. 

Senior Advocates DS Patwalia and Maninder Singh also appeared for the other respondents.  

The bench noted during the hearing that most of the applicants who applied under the widened NRI definition were persons from India.

Case Details : PRITHVANSH MALHOTRA vs. STATE OF PUNJAB W.P.(C) No. 000587 / 2024