Anushka Rengunthwar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.
Background
The petitioners are young OCI cardholders, mostly born abroad to Indian parents from 2003 onwards, who have lived and studied in India for 10 to 17 years. Under Central Government notifications of 2005 and 2009, OCI cardholders had parity with NRIs (and through them with Indian citizens) in education, including the right to sit for the all-India pre-medical test and compete for general seats. A notification dated 4 March 2021 superseded those notifications and restricted OCI cardholders to NRI or supernumerary seats only, declaring them ineligible for any seat reserved for Indian citizens. The petitioners, then at the point of appearing for NEET-UG, challenged the notification under Article 32 as arbitrary and retroactive.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court partly allowed the petitions. It accepted that the Central Government has the sovereign, statutory power under Section 7B(1) to confer, modify or withdraw OCI rights as a matter of policy, and that OCI cardholders are a class of their own who cannot claim full parity with citizens. But when a conferred right is withdrawn, the process must show application of mind, a rational link to the stated object, and freedom from arbitrariness. The government's stated aim of freeing seats for Indian citizens was undercut by its own data showing MBBS and PG seats remaining vacant every year, and the only record of deliberation was a 2018 secretaries' meeting with no reasons. The Court held the notification, though prospective on its face, operated retroactively by destroying rights on which these students had planned their entire education, describing it as shifting the goalpost when the game was about to end. It therefore declared that the supersession clause and clause 4(ii) with its proviso and Explanation will apply only to persons born abroad after 4 March 2021 who obtain OCI cards from that date; existing OCI cardholders retain the earlier rights, and their participation in admissions under interim orders stands regularised. The Court also asked the Executive to re-examine the policy given its wide impact on the Indian diaspora.
Lesson Learnt
The government may change policy for the future, but it cannot arbitrarily take away a benefit that people have already relied on for years to shape their lives without showing a genuine reason and considering the consequences. Rights that have accrued under an earlier scheme are generally protected from being wiped out by a later notification that is retroactive in effect.