Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Residential Requirement For NRIs In DASA Information Brochure

Upon hearing the submission of Advocate, Mr. Harish Beeran appearing for the petitioner, that a challenge to the said Clause in the DASA scheme had not been considered by any Court before, a Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai agreed to hear the plea on merits.

At the outset Mr. Beeran apprised the Bench that the DASA is a programme framed by the Government of India for admission of Foreign Nationals, Persons of Indian Origin ("PIOs") NRIs and Overseas Citizens of India ("OCIs") to undergraduate programmes in Premier Technology Institutions like NITs and IIITs and School of Architecture.

Clause 2.1.3 of the DASA Information Brochure provides that all Foreign Nationals studying in any country including India or Indian Nationals studying abroad who fulfill prescribed admission criteria shall be eligible. Prescribed admission criteria for Indian Nationals shall be at least two years of education, inclusive of 11th and 12th or equivalent (not beyond), in a Foreign Country during the last 8 years and must pass the qualifying examination from abroad.

The Bench enquired, "Where is the regulation that you have challenged? How can you say this regulation is bad in law?"

Mr. Beeran responded that the residential requirement has to be met by the NRI, while PIOs. OCIs and others were exempted. He argued that the impugned Clause is highly arbitrary and irrational.

"PIOs, OCIs have all been exempted, they can study in India and pass the collegiate exam in India. The only category not exempted is the NRIs and the exemption is also to this effect that in the last 8 years they have to study at least 2 years. I studied Class 1 to Class 10 there (Saudi Arabia)."

The petitioner, whose father is an NRI and has been working in Saudi Arabia for the past two decades, had completed her secondary education there. She came back to India and completed her higher secondary schooling from MES International School, Pattami in 2021.

"...Ten years I was studying in Saudi Arabia. Only 11th and 12th I came here. Your lordships know the situation in the Gulf, they cannot afford the child's education."

Mr. Beeran had emphasised that the residential requirement for the completion of qualifying examination had no nexus to the object of the scheme, which is to encourage PIOs, OCIs, NRIs and Foreign Nationals to be a part of the Indian education system.

The Bench asked Mr. Beeran if any representation was made to the concerned authority.

Mr. Beeran responded, "We made representation prior to the Single Judge's judgment."

The Bench pointed out, "The Division Bench again said to make representation, it would be considered."

Mr. Beeran submitted that the Division Bench had merely extracted the findings of the Single Judge and had not rendered any finding of its own. He asserted the same was one of his grievances before the Apex Court.

The petitioner had approached the Kerala High Court. The Single Judge dismissed the petition on the ground that the matter fell within the ambit of policy of the Central Government. However, it had directed the Government to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner raising her grievance within a period of one month. On appeal, the Division Bench found that the reasoning in the order of the Single Judge was sound and warranted no further interference.

[Case Title: Salma Iqbal v. UOI SLP (C) 2157 of 2022]