Are You Wealthy With NRI Connection ? Merit Is Not An Issue, There Is Reservation For Rich In National Law Universities

Non Resident Indian is an Indian citizen but resides outside India. NRI status is determined based on the individual's stay in India during the financial year. If a person stays in India for less than 182 days in a financial year, they are considered as NRI. They often include Indian citizens working or studying abroad or individuals of Indian origin living abroad. 'NRI-sponsored' quota refers to the category of seats that are reserved for students who are sponsored by NRIs.

In this context, ' sponsored' means that the educational expenses of the student are supported by an NRI, such as a relative or family friend living abroad. The fees of NRI sponsored category is around 10 to 12 Lakh in NLUs this year, ie 4 to 5 times higher than general fees. Admission to this category can easily be manipulated by the rich. It is common knowledge that none would spend lakhs to sponsor the children of a friend or family member gratiously, without getting the amount spent in return and through which channel that amount is paid back is for the tax authorities to see. What is required for availing the quota is only to show that funds for education fees come from abroad.

Understanding NRI-Sponsored Quotas

The purported aim is to bring in diverse perspectives and create an inclusive educational environment. Nevertheless, the implementation and consequences of these quotas have become subjects of intense scrutiny. While addressing the implementation of the NRI quota in educational institutions, the Supreme Court has laid down guidelines to ensure fairness and equity. Firstly, it mandated that the reserved seats for Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) should not exceed 15% of the available seats. Secondly, it emphasised that merit considerations should not be entirely set aside even within this NRI quota. Thirdly, the Court specified that any additional funds generated through NRI admissions must be earmarked to cross-subsidize the education of students from economically weaker backgrounds.

An analysis of all National Law Universities and utlisation of fees reveals a grim picture. While most of these institutions allocate seats for N.R.I./NRI-Sponsored/Foreign Nationals, only a few of them extend fee subsidies. These subsidies are generally meant for students from marginalised backgrounds, belonging to Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), or Persons with Disabilities (PWD). Surprisingly, a meagre amount of this extra revenue is used up to subsidise the under privilege students

To illustrate, institutions like NLS-Bangalore charge a yearly fee of Rs 4,13,500 for general category candidates. However, the 'subsidised' fee for SC/ST category students amounts to Rs. 4,09,000. Similarly, NALSAR-Hyderabad charges Rs 3,02,000 annually for general category students, while the 'subsidized' fee for SC/ST category students is Rs 2.96,000 lakh. This meagre difference between the fees paid by different categories of students highlights the irony of the so-called 'subsidized fees for SC/ST candidates,' bringing attention to the need for a more equitable distribution of financial aid within educational institutions.

Inclusivity: A Closer Look

Advocates for NRI-sponsored quotas argue that they contribute to inclusivity by bringing in diverse student population with global exposure, this diversity is seen as an asset, preparing students for the complexities of a globalized legal landscape. However, the question arises: Does this inclusivity come at the cost of equality?

P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2005)^[1]

The P.A. Inamdar case delved into the autonomy of private educational institutions in determining admission policies. While upholding the autonomy, the court emphasized that merit should not be compromised. This is particularly relevant when examining NRI-sponsored quotas, economic privilege superceds merit.

Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008)^[2]

The Ashoka Kumar Thakur case addressed the reservation policies in educational institutions. The court acknowledged the importance of affirmative action but stressed that reservations should last but should not compromise the overall quality of education. Applying this perspective to NRI-sponsored quotas, questions arise about whether these quotas might unintentionally compromise merit-based admissions.

Compare with other Reservation categories.

In N.L.U. Lucknow, a student with rank of 35562 in CLAT, got admission through sponsored category , whereas the EWS category's last closing rank was 1500, OBC -3500, SC - 9800, and ST was 27000. In HNLU Raipur, a student with a Rank of 40000 got admission through the sponsored category in CLAT 2023. Scheduled Category reservations are frequently criticized for allegedly undermining meritocracy, but barring the proficiency in English, most of the reserved category students are equally meritorious when compared with general category students and NRI quota students.

Moreover, the lifestyle of NRI/NRI-sponsored students differs from their peers. Hailing from affluent families, financial concerns are non-existent, sometimes triggering a sense of F.O.M.O. (Fear of Missing Out) among other students who witness their lifestyle.

In terms of participation in student-run committees, foreign quota students outperform S.C., S.T., OBC, and PWD students, possibly due to their proficiency in English speaking skills. The latter faces a higher rejection rate, while the former enjoys a higher chance of selection. It's important to note that these dynamics are influenced by family backgrounds.

The NRI Sponsored quota requires reconsideration.

The constitutional legitimacy of the NRI quota demands careful reconsideration. The case of PA Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra contends that the Supreme Court failed to thoroughly address this issue, prioritizing the operational efficiency of educational institutions over ensuring equal access to education and knowledge resources. This neglect resulted in a lack of comprehensive constitutional scrutiny of the NRI quota. In contrast, the Calcutta High Court took a more comprehensive approach in 2004 when scrutinizing the NRI quota. It applied a constitutional test, specifically evaluating the right to equality under Article 14. The focus was on Foreign/NRI/NRI-sponsored quotas in medical colleges in West Bengal. The court, recognizing the constitutional imperative, found that the argument for generating additional revenue was outweighed by the lack of coherence and arbitrariness associated with these quotas and their implementation. Consequently, the court declared the NRI quota unconstitutional and illegal, but the Supreme Court restored the quota.

Even Odisha High Court, in the case of Ishika Patnaik Vs. The National Law University of Odisha and Others^[3] observed and said, "we are constrained to observe that the NRIS category is an affront to the meritorious candidates who toiled day and night to secure seats in NLUs through CLAT. The candidates belonging to the category of NRI/NRIS, who are very low ranked in the merit list, often get seats in the NLUs, whereas the general candidates having secured better marks also lag behind the NRIS students and get disappointed. This is like the reservation for the elite class and this dubious category of quota is unconstitutional. The eligibility and selection under this category are unregulated, illegal and arbitrary.”

The opaqueness in the admission process under the NRI quota necessitates urgent attention. Stringent regulations and checks are vital for law institutions implementing this quota. While AICTE provides guidelines for engineering institutions and MCI for Medical Colleges, there is a noticeable absence of regulations for Law Schools. Furthermore, it is crucial to emphasize that the additional revenues generated through these quotas should be redirected to subsidize seats for SC/ST/OBC category students.

In conclusion, it is imperative to thoroughly assess the constitutional validity of these quotas, ensuring that they align with principles of equality and fairness in education.

Views are personal.