The Punjab and Haryana high court has quashed the Punjab government notification amending conditions for NRI quota admissions for MBBS courses in the state’s medical colleges.
The high court bench of chief justice Sheel Nagu and justice Anil Kshetarpal allowed the pleas against the move observing that the expansion of the ‘NRI’ definition through the August 20 notification was ‘arguably unjustified’.
In the August 20 notification, the state government had widened the definition of an NRI candidate and included relatives in this category. “Initially, the ‘NRI Quota’ was intended to benefit genuine NRIs and their children, allowing them to access education opportunities in India. By broadening the definition to include distant relatives such as uncles, aunts, grandparents, and cousins, the core objective of NRI quota is undermined. This widening opens the door for potential misuse, allowing individuals who do not fall within the original intent of the policy to take advantage of these seats, potentially bypassing more deserving candidates,” it observed.
Earlier, acting on the pleas on August 28, the high court had stayed the notification on amendments after a plea filed by Geetan Verma and several other aspirants for admission in the MBBS/BDS courses. As per them, on August 9, the prospectus for admission to the medical courses was issued. However, a notification was issued on August 20, changing the admission criterion, which was not permissible.
The court observed that the modified provision, which permits relatives to qualify as guardians, simply by showing that he has looked after such a student, is vague and lacks clear criteria. “It creates room for manipulation, where guardianship might be claimed merely for the sake of securing admission under this category. This significantly dilutes the merit-based admission process and unfairly disadvantages students who may be more academically qualified but lack the financial resources to compete with those availing the ‘NRI Quota’ under these expanded terms,” the bench recorded.
{{/usCountry}}The court observed that the modified provision, which permits relatives to qualify as guardians, simply by showing that he has looked after such a student, is vague and lacks clear criteria. “It creates room for manipulation, where guardianship might be claimed merely for the sake of securing admission under this category. This significantly dilutes the merit-based admission process and unfairly disadvantages students who may be more academically qualified but lack the financial resources to compete with those availing the ‘NRI Quota’ under these expanded terms,” the bench recorded.
{{/usCountry}}The court asserted that in essence, the original intent behind the ‘NRI quota’ was to provide access for children of genuine NRIs, which has been stretched beyond “reasonable limits, and this would compromise the integrity and fairness of the admission process”.
“It is significant to note that the government has also permitted the candidates to change their category when the admission process was about to end, which is questionable,” it further recorded, directing the government to complete the admission process as per the original and unamended prospectus.