On January 3, a division of the Supreme Court, presided over by Justices AS Bopanna and CT Ravikumar, ruled that the Central Government's March 4, 2021, notification removing the ability of students in the Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) category to apply for general seats and restricting them to Non-Resident Indians (NRI) category seats will only be effective retroactively. 

This indicates that all previous rights of OCI students up until March 4, 2021, are preserved and will not be impacted. For the academic year 2021–2022, the Court had previously issued temporary orders allowing some OCI petitioners to apply for general category seats. These admissions have been regularised, Justice AS Bopanna declared while delivering the judgement.

"All prior to 04.03.2021, retain their rights. Subsequent to 04.03.2021, these notification applies", Justice Bopanna said. 

A group of petitions from OCI students contesting the 2021 notification resulted in the ruling. 

Senior Attorney Mr. P. Chidambaram had argued on behalf of the OCI students that while classification is permitted, micro-classification has been frowned upon by this Court. He had cited the decision in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India. While those with OCI status are solely eligible for NRI seats, he had made clear that NRIs can apply for both NRI and Indian seats. It had been argued that OCI students would be given preference for general category seats up until 2020.

Senior attorney Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan argued on behalf of students who were born to OCI parents and had been living in India that OCIs and Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) cannot be compared because NRIs live overseas and earn foreign currency. However, a large number of OCI families remain in India. 

In order to grant certain rights to people of Indian descent who may also hold citizenship in another country, the Government of India developed the OCI concept in 2005, according to the Senior Counsel. The plan was introduced to entice them to relocate to India and offer their services there. When children were born overseas while their parents were employed there, in some situations, they may have acquired foreign citizenship. They might have later travelled back to India; they might have been brought up in India, but still have the OCI status due to their foreign citizenship.

It was also emphasised that there are very few NRI seats available for medical admissions and that the prices for these seats are quite high, making them unaffordable for Indian-born OCI students. 

ASG Aishwarya Bhati, speaking on behalf of the Union Government, claimed that while OCI students can obtain citizenship abroad, petitioners are attempting to compete for seats intended for Indian citizens, who have no other options. 

The Senior Counsel for the OCI students was questioned by the Bench during the hearing about why they did not renounce their foreign citizenship in order to compete in the general category for admission to medical colleges.

By arguing that the petitioners are only asking for the continuation of the benefits that were being provided till 2021, Mr. Vishwanathan responded to the Bench's concern. He had cited Section 7B of the Citizenship Act of 1955 in this regard, which states that OCI persons are entitled to the rights outlined by the Government. Since the rights had been in place for a while, there was a legitimate expectation, therefore their abrupt termination was arbitrary. Many OCIs allegedly made the decision to settle in India because of the privileges granted by Section 7B. The Centre's notification, according to Mr. Vishwanathan, paints all OCIs with the same brush without considering persons who have been residing in India for long.

Case Title: Anushka Rengunthwar And Ors. v. Union of India And Ors. 
Citation: WP(C) No.891/2021