OCI Cardholders Before 2021 MEA Notification Eligible Either Under Indian National Or Foreign National Category For MBBS Admission: Delhi HC

For context, the MEA's notification dated 04.03.2021 shifted the OCI Cardholders pursuing their studies in India for the purpose of competitive examinations such as NEET, from the Indian National Category to the Foreign National Category.

It is pertinent to note that this notification was challenged before the Supreme Court in Anushka Rengunthwar v. Union of India (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 73). While upholding the notification, the Supreme Court granted relief to OCI Cardholders who were either born before or obtained their OCI status prior to 04 March, 2021, allowing them to continue enjoying benefits at par with Indian Nationals.

In a similar case of Pallavi v. Union of India (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 741), an OCI cardholder challenged her categorization under the Indian National Category. The Supreme Court taking note of its earlier decision, observed the relief in Anushka only granted the benefit to the aggrieved party to be treated at par with Indian Nationals. It granted relief to the petitioner to be considered under the Foreign National Category.

In the present case, the grievance of the petitioner was regarding the allocation of seats to the Foreign Nationals Quota by AIIMS for its MBBS course.

The brochure-prospectus issued by AIIMS reserved 125 seats for Indian Nationals and 7 seats for Foreign Nationals. The petitioner alleged that 7 seats reserved for foreign nationals were filled by certain students improperly and erroneously, who have obtained their OCI Cards prior to 04.03.2021.

The petitioner contended that in view of decision in Anushka, AIIMS should not have considered OCI Cardholders prior to 04.03.2021 in the Foreign National Category, but rather in the Indian National Category.

After considering Anushka and Pallavi, a single judge bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav noted that both the decisions indicate that the legitimate expectation of an individual cannot be violated.

The Court however rejected the petitioner's contention that in Anushka, the Supreme Court had restricted OCI Cardholders who obtained their OCI Cards prior to 04.03.2021 to be exclusively considered under the Indian National Category.

It remarked,

“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 petitioner further argued that a notification dated 21.08.2024 issued by AIIMS amended the terms of its original brochure-prospectus.

The Court noted that in its MBBS brochure-prospectus, AIIMS made a reference to the Anushka case. The brochure stated that all terms and conditions applicable for Indian national give in the prospectus would be applicable to OCI card holders prior to 04.03.2021.

The Court further noted that in the notice dated 21.08.2024 issued by AIIMS, it was provided that OCI cardholders would be eligible in the Foreign Nationals Quota.

The Court was of the view that there was no apparent inconsistency between the original brochure-prospectus for the MBBS program and the Notification dated 21.08.2024.

The Court opined that the Notification dated 21.08.2024 was merely clarificatory in nature and thus did not alter or amend the original terms of the brochure-prospectus.

“…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. Therefore, it is evident that the impugned Notification merely provided further clarification regarding the admission procedure.”

The Court held that there was no apparent inconsistency between the original brochure-prospectus for the MBBS program and the notification dated 21.08.2024.

Notably, the Court remarked that AIIMS, as an institution of National Importance failed to provide clarity in its brochure-prospectus. It stated that AIIMS as well as MCC failed to present a coherent understanding of the rules and regulations concerning the admission process for OCI candidates.

It observed, “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 further remarked “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.”

With these observations, the Court dismissed the petition.