ANUSHKA RENGUNTHWAR & ORS versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 5 S.C.R. 243 · Decided: 03-02-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. BOPANNA, C.T. RAVIKUMAR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
243
ANUSHKA RENGUNTHWAR & ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (C) No. 891 of 2021)
FEBRUARY 03, 2023
[A. S. BOPANNA AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Citizenship Act, 1955 – s.7B(1) – Through notifications
dtd.11.04.2005, 05.01.2009, the Overseas Citizens of India (OCI)
Cardholders were given the right of parity with Non-Resident
Indians (NRIs) in respect of the facilities as notified, including in
the field of education, who in turn had the parity with Indian Citizens
– Impugned notification dtd.04.03.21 issued by Respondent No.1,
in exercise of powers u/s.7B(1), took away the existing right of OCI
Cardholders of appearing for the Entrance Exams to compete with
Indian Citizens for the seats and restricted the admission only as
against the seats reserved for the NRIs or for supernumerary seats
– Proviso to clause 4(ii) of the notification further clarified that the
OCI Cardholders shall not be eligible for admission against any
seat reserved exclusively for Indian Citizens – Challenged by
students-OCI Cardholders aspiring to become Doctors by pursuing
the MBBS course by securing admission through NEET and
thereafter the post-graduation/super specialty – Held: Decision to
supersede the earlier notifications and take away the right of OCI
Cardholders should not have been nullified without reference to
the consequences – Impugned notification not saving such accrued
rights indicates non application of mind and arbitrariness – Though
the impugned notification is based on a policy and is in the exercise
of the statutory power of a Sovereign State, the provisions contained
therein shall apply prospectively only to persons born in a foreign
country subsequent to 04.03.2021 i.e. the date of the notification
and who seek for a registration as OCI cardholder from that date –
Impugned notification though competent u/s.7B(1) suffers from the
vice of non-application of mind and despite being prospective, is in
fact retroactive taking away the rights which were conferred also
as a matter of policy of the Sovereign State – Impugned portion of
the notification providing for supersession of the notifications
dtd.11.04.2005, 05.01.2007, 05.01.2009 and the clause 4(ii), its
[2023] 5 S.C.R. 243
243
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
244
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 5 S.C.R.
proviso and Explanation (1) thereto shall operate prospectively in
respect of OCI cardholders who have secured the same subsequent
to 04.03.2021 – Citizenship Amendment Act, 2003 – Constitution of
India – Article 11, 14 – Foreigners Act, 1946 – s.2(a) – Doctrine of
Legitimate Expectation.
Citizenship Act, 1955 – ss.7A, 7B(1) – Right of the Overseas
Citizens of India (OCI) Cardholders  – Held: The right of the OCI
Cardholders is a midway right in the absence of dual citizenship –
When a statutory right was conferred and such right was being
withdrawn through a notification, the process for withdrawal is
required to demonstrate that the action taken is reasonable and has
nexus to the purpose – It should not be arbitrary, without basis and
exercise of such power cannot be exercised unmindful of
consequences merely because it is a sovereign power – Citizenship
Amendment Act, 2003.
Citizenship Act, 1955 – s.7B(2) – Plea of the petitioners that
since s.7B(2) does not exclude the right u/Article 14, it is available
to be invoked and discrimination contemplated in the impugned
notification to exclude the OCI Cardholders should be struck down
– Held: Article 14 can be invoked and contend discrimination only
when persons similarly placed are treated differently – The OCI
Cardholders being a class by themselves cannot claim parity with
the Indian citizens, except for making an attempt to save the limited
statutory right bestowed – Constitution of India – Article 14.
Partly allowing the petitions/appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Most of the petitioners are all persons who are
either of full age or are yet to reach the full age but are all children,
whose both parents or one of them are Indian citizens. All the
petitioners are registered as Overseas Citizens of India
cardholders is not in dispute. The right to which they are making
a claim is conferred under Section 7B(1) to Act, 1955. The right
to education which was conferred under the notification dated
11.04.2005, in parity with the Non-Resident Indians is due to the
fact that the Non-Resident Indians which is a separate class, had
such right similar to that of the Indian citizens in matters relating
to education. It is based on su

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.