Meghana Kuruvalli Vs. The State Of Karnataka - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....aga for r1 & r3; sri n.k. ramesh, advocate for r2; sri k. arvind kamath, asgi a/w smt. swati panduranga, adovate for r4) this writ petition is filed under article226of the constitution of india praying to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing clause6of the impugned notification issued the2d respondent karnataka examinations authority (kea) produced at annexure-b in no.ed/kea/admn/cr-09/2023-24 dated09h january2024(09.01.2024) to the extent it stipulates “no candidate shall be eligible for admission to government seats unless he is citizen of india” and “eligibility for oci/pio candidates shall be as per the directions of the government” and etc. this writ petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on for pronouncement this day, chief justice made the following: - 3 - coram: hon'ble the chief justice mr. justice n. v. anjaria and hon'ble mr. justice k. v. aravind c.a.v. order (per: hon'ble mr. justice n.v. anjaria) the petitioner, who is the overseas citizen of india cardholder and registered as such under section 7a of the citizenship act, 1955, by filing this petition under article 226 of the constitution,.....

Judgment:

- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE4H DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No.15400 OF2024(EDN-RES) BETWEEN: MEGHANA KURUVALLI, AGED18YEARS, D/O RENUKA REDDY KURUVALLI, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT VALMARK CITYVILLE, VILLAMENT533 14TH BLOCK, OFF BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD, THEJASWINI NAGAR PHASE1 HOBLI CHANDRASHEKARPURA, VILLAGE BEGUR, BENGALURU-560 076. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI AJOY KUMAR PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND:

1. . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MEDICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY, SAMPIGE ROAD, 18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU-560 012, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. 3 . DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION IN KARNATAKA, - 2 - BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE (OLD BUILDING), K.R. ROAD, FORT, BENGALURU-560 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. 4 . THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, MAJOR DHYAN CHAND NATIONAL STADIUM, INDIA GATE, NEW DELHI-110 001. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.N. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 & R3; SRI N.K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI K. ARVIND KAMATH, ASGI A/W SMT. SWATI PANDURANGA, ADOVATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE226OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT,

ORDER

OR DIRECTION QUASHING CLAUSE6OF THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION ISSUED THE2D RESPONDENT KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY (KEA) PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B IN No.ED/KEA/ADMN/CR-09/2023-24 DATED09H JANUARY2024(09.01.2024) TO THE EXTENT IT STIPULATES “NO CANDIDATE SHALL BE ELIGIBLE FOR ADMISSION TO GOVERNMENT SEATS UNLESS HE IS CITIZEN OF INDIA” AND “ELIGIBILITY FOR OCI/PIO CANDIDATES SHALL BE AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT” AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR

ORDER

S, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND C.A.V.

ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA) The petitioner, who is the Overseas Citizen of India cardholder and registered as such under Section 7A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, by filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, has amongst other prayers, advanced the prayer to consider her case for admission to the Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery as well as to the Bachelor of Dental Surgery courses for the academic year 2024-25 in the State of Karnataka, under Article 371J of the Constitution, and under the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission in Hyderabad Karnataka Region) Order, 2013 for the seats earmarked for the students of Hyderabad-Karnataka Region. Prayers and Relief 2. In addition to the aforementioned principal prayer to be grouped together with the category of students under Article 371J of the Constitution for admission in the Hyderabad-Karnataka or Kalyana Karnataka quota, the other attendant prayers are made to set aside Clause 6 of Notification dated 09.01.2024 issued by - 4 - respondent No.2-Karnataka Examination Authority which clause inter alia contemplates that ‘no candidate shall be eligible for admission to the Government seats unless he is citizen of India’ and that ‘eligibility for Overseas Citizen of India/Person of Indian Origin candidates shall be as per the directions of the Government’. It is further prayed to set aside clause 6.1 of the Information Bulletin issued by respondent No.1-State of Karnataka and respondent No.2-Karnataka Examination Authority (KEA) dated 10.01.2024 to the extent it provides similarly. 2.1 The petitioner has the grievance that the KEA has clubbed together on its website the Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) candidates with the Non-Resident India (NRI)/Foreign National candidates. It is the prayer to set aside the said Clause of clubbing. Further prayed is to consider the case of the petitioner under Article 371J of the Constitution in the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region general category seats. The petitioner wants that she should be permitted to participate in the seat allotment process and to chose the seat in the course accordingly. 2.2 The next prayer put forth is to declare that in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Anushka Rengunthwar and others v. Union of India and others [(2023) 11 SCC209: AIR - 5 - 2023 SC903, the petitioner is eligible and entitled to appear and participate in the seat selection and allotment process for the academic year 2024-2025. The last prayer made by the petitioner is that the authorities are guilty of contempt of court for violating the decision of Anushka Rengunthwar (supra), in not treating the petitioner-the OCI cardholder at par with Indian citizen. Basic Facts 3. The case of the petitioner inter alia is that although the petitioner is an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) Cardholder, she has studied for the last six years in Ballari, State of Karnataka, that she has completed her 10th standard examination from Ballari and further that she has appeared for the 2nd Pre University Certificate examination, the result of which is awaited. 3.1 It is stated that the petitioner studied in the Hyderabad- Karnataka Region for six academic years and her father has studied in the said region for more than seven academic years. It is the claim of the petitioner that despite her registration as OCI cardholder, since she was born in Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh in India, she can assert the status of Indian citizenship by birth. The petitioner has subsequently acquired the citizenship of United Kingdom. Undisputedly, the petitioner is a foreign national with - 6 - citizenship of United Kingdom, whose parents stay at United Kingdom. The registration certification as OCI Cardholder, copy figuring on record, reflects such particulars of the petitioner and the address of United Kingdom. 3.1.1 In paragraph 3 of the petition, following is pleaded which becomes crux of the case and the grievance of the petitioner, “When the petitioner registered online with KEA to participate in the online counselling for admission to MBBS/ BDS seats in Karnataka, the KEA website permitted her to register as a Foreign National and not as Indian Citizen, contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court … and the only option available to the Petitioner was to register herself as Foreign National-OCI- Overseas Citizen of India …” Governing Admission Rules 3.2 The KEA-respondent No.2 herein issued Notification dated 9th January 2024 in relation to admission to professional courses in the State of Karnataka for the year 2024-25. It inter alia contemplates that for the admission to the professional courses to Government seats in the State of Karnataka, the candidates have to be Indian citizen. It is clause 6 which so contemplates, for which the petitioner has grievance.-. 7 - The Notification dated 9th January 2024 is issued as per the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Government Seats in Professional Educational Institutions Rules, 2006, which are the governing Rules. 3.2.1 Clause 6 of the said Notification dealing with eligibility, reads as under, “Eligibility: As per Rule 5(1) of Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Government seats in Professional Educational Institutions Rules 2006 (Amendments), No candidates shall be eligible for admission to Government Seats unless he is a citizen of India and satisfies any one of the eligibility conditions specified therein. The candidates who do not satisfy any of the Clauses / Eligibility Criteria are not eligible for admission to professional courses under Government quota seats through KEA, Eligibility for OCI/PIO candidates for Government seats shall be as per the directions of the Government.

3.2.2 The Information Bulletin in respect of admission issued by the Karnataka Examination Authority (KEA), has in it clause 6.1, as part of Clause 6 deals with the eligibility clauses as per Rule 5(1) of CET-2006 Admission Rules to Claim for Government Seats. Clause 6.1 is reproduced below, “6.1 No candidate shall be eligible for admission to Government Seats unless he is a Citizen of India and satisfies any one of the following conditions. Eligibility for OCI/PIO candidates for Government seats shall be as per the directions of the Government.” - 8 - 3.2.3 The aforementioned Admission Rules, 2006 are framed by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 14 of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984. In view of the Rules, the OCI Cardholders have been clubbed with foreign nationals and are treated eligible only for the Non-Resident Indian seats in the private Medical and Dental Colleges. The petitioner has the grievance about the aforementioned clause No.6 in the Rules and corresponding clause in 6.1 in the Information Bulletin. 3.2.4 Rule 5 of the Admission Rules, 2006 stipulates thus, extracting relevant part, “Eligibility for Government Seats.- No candidate shall be eligible for admission to Government Seats unless he is a citizen of India and satisfies any one of the following conditions, namely.- (i) who has studied and passed in one or more Government or Government recognised educational institutions located in the State of Karnataka for a minimum period of SEVEN academic years commencing from 1st Standard to IIPUC or 12th Standard as on 1st July of the year in which the Entrance Test is held and must have appeared and passed SSLC or 10th Standard or 12th Standard or equivalent examination from institutions located in the State of Karnataka: Provided that in the case of a candidate who takes more than one year to pass a class or - 9 - standard, the years of academic study is counted as one year only. (ii) who has studied and passed I and II year Pre- University Examination or equivalent examination, within the State of Karnataka from an educational institution run or recognised by the State Government and either of his parents must have studied in an educational institution run or recognised by the State Government and located in the State of Karnataka for a minimum period of Seven years; (iii) who is a Horanadu Kannadiga: Provided that … (iv) who is a Gadinadu Kannadiga: Provided that … (v) whose parent is a defence personnel … (vi) whose parent is a serving defence personnel… (vii) whose parent is a defence personnel who had served in Karnataka for at least one year… (viii) whose parent is an ex-serviceman, who at the time of joining the defence service had… (ix) whose parent is an employee of the Union or Karnataka State Government undertaking or… (x) whose parent is a working or retired employee… (a) …had declared to the employer at the time of joining any place in Karnataka to be his hometown; and (b) …had studied in any Government or Government recognised educational institutions - 10 - located in Karnataka for not less than seven years; and (c) was or is liable for transfer anywhere in India as per the terms and conditions of employment. (xi) whose parent is a Member of Parliament elected from Karnataka; (xii) whose parent is a serving or retired employee:– (a) … (b) … (xiii) whose parent is a Jammu and Kashmir migrant… 3.2.5 Clause 6 of the Notification dated 09.01.2024 and Clause 6.1 of the Information Bulletin has basis of the aforesaid Rule 5. Category of Reservation 3.3 Information Bulletin for admission inter alia provides for reservation of seats in favour of certain categories as per Rule 9 of the CET-2006 Admission Rules. The category relevant for the controversy under consideration is the one mentioned in paragraph 11 (e) of the Bulletin. This category is in respect of reservation of the seats under Article 371J of the Constitution for Kalyana Karnataka (KK) or Hyderabad-Karnataka (HK) Region.-. 11 - 3.3.1 Paragraph 11(e) of the Information Bulletin is as under, “Reservation as per “The Karnataka Educational Institutions (Regulations of Admission in the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region) Order, 2013” (cid:1) The part of the State called the Hyderabad- Karnataka Region comprising districts of Bidar, Gulbarga, Yadgir, Raichur, Koppal and Bellary- Vijayanagar shall be regarded as the local area. (cid:1) 70% of the available seats in every course of study in any regional University or educational institution located in the places referred above in the local area shall be reserved in favour of the local persons, in respect of such University or education institutuion. (cid:1) 8% of the available seats in every course of study provided in a state wide University or a statewide educational institution be allocated among the local candidates of the Hyderabad- Karnataka Region. (cid:1) The eligible candidates should produce the relevant certificate in ANNEXURE-A appended to this brochure issued by the concerned Assistant Commissioner during document verification to become eligible to claim seat under Hyderabad-Karnataka Reservation (Article 371(J)) in CET-2024 as per rules.

3.3.2 Even to category of the candidates who claim benefit of reservation contemplated under Article 371J of the Constitution, the aforementioned Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Government seats in Professional Educational Institutions Rules, 2006 would apply. Their eligibility to be considered for admission to the courses even in the colleges in the - 12 - HK region or KK region would be governed by and determined as per the aforesaid 2006 Rules read with the conditions of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Regulations of Admission in Hyderabad Karnataka Region) Order, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Hyderabad-Karnataka Order, 2013). Article 371J of the Constitution 3.4 The moot issue to be addressed is about the acceptability of the case of the petitioner to be included for the purpose of admission to the Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) or Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) course with benefit of reservation under Article 371J of the Constitution. The criteria for applying this benefit under Article 371J are contained in the Hyderabad-Karnataka Order, 2013. 3.4.1 Article 371J of the Constitution which is in respect of special provisions with respect to the State of Karnataka, is as under, “371J.

Special provisions with respect to the State of Karnataka- (1) The President may, by order made with respect to the State of Karnataka, provide for any special responsibility of the Governor for— (a) establishment of a separate development board for Hyderabad-Karnataka region with the provision that a report on the working of the board will be - 13 - placed each year before the State Legislative Assembly; (b) equitable allocation of funds for developmental expenditure over the said region, subject to the requirements of the State as a whole; and (c) equitable opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to the said region, in matters of public employment, education and vocational training, subject to the requirements of the State as a whole. (2) An order made under sub-clause (c) of clause (1) may provide for - (a) reservation of a proportion of seats in educational and vocational training institutions in the Hyderabad-Karnataka region for students who belong to that region by birth or by domicile; and (b) identification of posts or classes of posts under the State Government and in any body or organisation under the control of the State Government in the Hyderabad-Karnataka region and reservation of a proportion of such posts for persons who belong to that region by birth or by domicile and for appointment thereto by direct recruitment or by promotion or in any other manner as may be specified in the order.

3.4.2 Sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of Article 371J (1) provides for extending equitable opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to the Hyderabad-Karnataka region in the matters of public employment, education, etc. As per sub-Article (2), it is stated that an order made under sub-clause (c) aforementioned may provide for “reservation” to a proportion of - 14 - seats in educational and vocational training institutions in the Hyderabad-Karnataka region for students who “belong to” that region by birth or domicile. 3.4.3 The object of insertion of Article 371J in the Constitution and its legislative background are highlighted in the subsequent discussion. Hyderabad-Karnataka Order, 2013 3.5 The Hyderabad-Karnataka Region Order, 2013 published under the Notification dated 06.11.2013 in the Karnataka Gazette Extraordinary No.1253 is framed in exercise of powers conferred by Clause 2 of the Karnataka (Special Responsibility of Governor for Hyderabad-Karnataka Region) Order, 2013. It will be relevant to notice certain provisions therefrom. 3.5.1 Clause 6 of the Order is in respect of reservation in regional universities and educational institutions, “6. Reservation in Regional Universities and educational institutions- (1) Admission to 70% of the available seats in every course of study in any Regional University or educational institution referred to in the First Schedule in the Local area shall be reserved in favour of the local persons, in respect of such University or educational institution.-. 15 - (2) While determining under sub-paragraph (1) the number of seats to be reserved in favour of local persons any fraction of a seat shall be counted as one: Provided that there shall be atleast one unreserved seat.

3.5.2 Clause 7 is about reservation in State-wide Universities, extracted hereunder, “7. Reservation in State-wide Universities and State-wide educational institutions- (1) 8% of the available seats in every course of study provided in a State-wide University or a State-wide educational institution referred to in the Second Schedule be allocated among the Local candidates of the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region. (2) While determining under sub-paragraph (1) the number of seats to be reserved in favour of the local persons, any fraction of a seat shall be counted as one: Provided that there shall be at least one unreserved seat. (3) While allocating under sub-paragraph (1) the reserved seats among the local persons in relation to the local area, fractions of a seat shall be adjusted by counting the greatest fractions as one and, if necessary, also the greater of the remaining fractions as another; and where the fraction to be so counted cannot be selected by reason of the factions being equal, the selection shall be by lot: Provided that there shall be atleast one seat allocated for the local persons in respect of the local area.” - 16 - 3.5.3 As per Clause 8, if a local person is not available to fill any seats reserved or allocated in favour of local person, such seats shall be filled as if it has not been reserved. 3.5.4 Paragraph 3 of the Order is ‘Local Area’ as defined in Section 2(b). Paragraph 3 states that the part of the State called the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region comprising of the Districts of Bidar, Gulbarga, Yadgir, Raichur, Koppal and Bellary-Vijaynagar will be regarded as local area. The concept of region is made equivalent to local area as specified in the aforesaid paragraph. 3.5.5 The definition clause in Section 2 (i) defines the word ‘domicile’ to mean ‘local persons’ as provided in paragraph 4 of the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region Order, 2013. The said paragraph is reproduced, “4. Domicile (Local Persons).- A candidate for admission to any course of study shall be regarded as a local person in relation to the local area.- (a) If he is born in local area, or either of his parents was born in that region before 1-1-2013, or either of his parents ordinarily lived in the local area for more than ten years prior to 1-1-2013 and had their name either in the electoral list or ration card; or owned any immovable property on or before 1-1-2013 in the local area; or - 17 - (b) In cases where a minimum educational qualification has been prescribed for admission.- (i) If he has studied in an educational institution or educational institutions in such local area for a period of not less than Ten consecutive academic years ending with the academic year in which he appeared or, as the case may be, first appeared for the relevant qualifying examination; or (ii) Where during the whole or any part of the Ten consecutive academic years ending with the academic year in which he appeared or as the case may be, first appeared for the relevant qualifying examination he has not studied in any educational institution, if he has resided in that local area for a period of not less than Ten years immediately preceding the date of commencement of the qualifying examination in which he appeared or as the case may be, first appeared; or (iii) Where either of his parents has studied in an Educational Institution in such Local area for a period of Ten consecutive academic years. (c) In cases where no minimum educational qualification has been prescribed for admission, if he or either of his parents has resided in that local area for a period of not less than Ten years immediately preceding the date on which the seat is notified for admission; and (d) In case of a woman, if she got married to a local person specified in the clauses (a) to (c) above.” - 18 - 3.5.6 The concept of domicile encapsulated in the above paragraph mentions about who should be regarded as local person for the admission to any course of study. It is to be observed that the concept of domicile classified as local persons necessarily interlinks and has a conceptual correspondence with the category of the students to whom the beneficial provisions in the matter of education under Article 371J of the Constitution could be extended. 3.5.7 As mentioned above, the case of the petitioner is that she is a local person since she could be said to be satisfying the requirements of paragraph 4 of the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region Order, 2013. It is the case that even as the petitioner is OCI Cardholder, for the purpose of admission to professional courses including in the reservation earmarked for Hyderabad-Karnataka category and she is required to be grouped alongwith other Indian citizens. Status of Overseas Citizens of India 3.6 Proceeding now to look into the status of OCI Cardholders under the provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955, Section 2 (ee) of the Citizenship Act defines ‘Overseas Citizen of India Cardholder’. The phrase means a person registered as an Overseas Citizen of - 19 - India Cardholder by the Central Government under section 7A of the Act of 1955, 3.6.1 Section 7A of the Citizenship Act and other companion sections leading to Section 7D, fall under the title ‘Overseas Citizenship’. Section 7A deals with registration of Overseas Citizens of India Cardholders. This section extracted with relevance, “7A. Registration of Overseas Citizen of India Cardholder― (1) The Central Government may, subject to such conditions, restrictions and manner as may be prescribed, on an application made in this behalf, register as an Overseas Citizen of India Cardholder― (a) any person of full age and capacity,― (i) who is a citizen of another country, but was a citizen of India at the time of, or at any time after the commencement of the Constitution; or (ii) who is a citizen of another country, but was eligible to become a citizen of India at the time of the commencement of the Constitution; or (iii) who is a citizen of another country, but belonged to a territory that became part of India after the 15th day of August, 1947; or (iv) who is a child or a grandchild or a great grandchild of such a citizen; or (b) a person, who is a minor child of a person mentioned in clause (a); or - 20 - (c) a person, who is a minor child, and whose both parents are citizens of India or one of the parents is a citizen of India; or (d) spouse of foreign origin of a citizen of India or spouse of foreign origin of an Overseas Citizen of India Cardholder registered under section 7A and whose marriage has been registered and subsisted for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the application under this section: Provided that for the eligibility for registration as an Overseas Citizen of India Cardholder, such spouse shall be subjected to prior security clearance by a competent authority in India: Provided further that no person, who or either of whose parents or grandparents or great grandparents is or had been a citizen of Pakistan, Bangladesh or such other country as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify, shall be eligible for registration as an Overseas Citizen of India Cardholder under this sub-section. (2) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the date from which the existing persons of Indian Origin Cardholders shall be deemed to be Overseas Citizens of India Cardholders. Explanation.―For the purposes of this sub- section, “Persons of Indian Origin Cardholders” means the persons registered as such under notification number 26011/4/98 F.I., dated the 19th August, 2002, issued by the Central Government in this regard. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), the Central Government may, if it is satisfied that special circumstances exist, after recording the circumstances in writing, register a - 21 - person as an Overseas Citizen of India Cardholder.

3.6.2 As statutorily contemplated, any person who is a citizen of another country, but was a citizen of India at the time of or after the commencement of the Constitution may apply for registration as OCI Cardholder. Thus, the provision presupposes the factual facet that a person applying for OCI Cardholder status is a citizen of a country other than India, and not citizen of India. In the present case, as stated, the petitioner is a citizen of United Kingdom but registered as OCI Cardholder under Section 7A of the Citizenship Act. 3.6.3 Section 7B is about conferment of rights on OCI Cardholders. It is provided that the OCI Cardholders shall be entitled to such rights as the Government may by notification in Official Gazette specify in that behalf. Such rights which may be specified have to be the rights other than the rights specified under sub-section (2). Sub-section (2) mentions in its sub-clause (a) to (i) the kinds and categories of rights which shall not be conferred on OCI Cardholder. Section 7C is about the renunciation of the OCI Cardholders, whereas Section 7D of the Act is the provision in respect of cancellation of registration as OCI Cardholder.-. 22 - Notifications under Section 7B(1) 3.7 The Government of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs issued Notification dated 11.04.2005 conferring certain rights in the nature of facilities on OCI Cardholders. The Ministry of Overseas India Affairs issued another Notification dated 05.01.2009 which was published in the Gazettee on 06.01.2009 conferring certain further rights on the OCI cardholders. The Notifications facilitated educational avenues in respect of professional courses by providing for the OCI Cardholders the entitlement to appear for All India Pre-Medical Test or such other tests to make them eligible for admission in pursuance of the provisions contained in the applicable Acts. 3.7.1 The Ministry of Home Affairs subsequently issued Notification dated 04.03.2021 which was also in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 7B of the Citizenship Act, 1955. This Notification came to be issued in suppression of the aforementioned previous Notification dated 11.04.2005 and Notification dated 05.01.2009. As stated, the earlier Notifications of 2005 and 2009 provided to extend certain facilities to the OCI cardholders.-. 23 - 3.7.2 Noticing the provisions of the said Notification dated 04.03.2021, what is relevant for the present case is what is stated in paragraph 4 in which parity with Non-Resident Indians is accorded to the OCI cardholders. The said paragraph 4 of the Notification dated 04.03.2021 is reproduced below, “Parity with Non-Resident Indians in the matter of,- (i) inter-country adoption of Indian children subject to the compliance of the procedure as laid down by the competent authority for such adoption; (ii) appearing for the all India entrance tests such as National Eligibility cum Entrance Test, Joint Entrance Examination (Mains), Joint Entrance Examination (Advanced) or such other tests to make them eligible for admission only against any Non-Resident Indian seat or any supernumerary seat: Provided that the OCI cardholder shall not be eligible for admission against any seat reserved exclusively for Indian citizens; …

3.7.3 What paragraph 4 above contemplates is that the OCI Cardholders shall be treated at par with Non-Resident Indians, as provided in sub-clause (ii), for appearing in All India Entrance Tests such as National Eligibility cum Entrance Test and those other mentioned in the clause. This is done in order to make them eligible for admission only against any Non-Resident Indian seat or any supernumerary seat.-. 24 - 3.7.4 The proviso is unequivocal when it states that the OCI cardholders shall not be eligible for admission against any seat which is reserved exclusively for Indian citizens. The parity does not permit the OCI cardholders to enter into realm or for seats which is exclusively reserved for Indian citizens. The Explanation reads as under, “For the purposes of this notification- (1) The OCI Cardholder (including a PIO cardholder) is a foreign national holding passport of a foreign country and is not a citizen of India. (2) “Non-Resident Indian” shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Foreign Exchange Management (Acquisition and Transfer of Immovable Property in India) Regulations, 2018 made by the Reserve Bank of India under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (42 of 1999) and who fulfils the “Non- Resident Indian” status as per the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961).” Anushka Rengunthwar 3.8 The aforementioned Notifications issued under Section 7B(1) of the Citizenship Act, and in particular Notification dated 4th March 2021, came to be considered for its import and applicability by the Supreme Court in Anushka Rengunthwar (supra). The Notification dated 4th March 2021 was challenged before the Supreme Court. Although the decision of the Apex Court has - 25 - somewhat different context, the judgment in Anushka Rengunthwar (supra) throws light on many of the issues and aspects involved in the present case, to guide this court to address the controversy. In that view, the said decision may be considered in its due details. 3.8.1 The petitioners before the Supreme Court were OCI Cardholders aspiring to become Doctors by pursuing MBBS course securing the admission through NEET selection process and to further study the post-graduation and super-speciality in the field of medicine. At the stage when the notification was challenged, the petitioners had been preparing to appear in NEET-UG examination based on the facilitator rights available to them under notification dated 11th April 2005 and 5th January 2009. 3.8.2 The petitioners had no quarrel with the validity of Section 7B(1), 7D, 8(1) and 9(1) of the 1955 Act. Accepting the sovereign power of the respondent-state authorities, the petitioners were aggrieved only by the manner in which the notification dated 4th March 2021 was issued taking away the existing rights for them. They contended before the Supreme Court that they are not only OCI Cardholders, but were resident OCI Cardholders and therefore they should be treated like any other citizen of India. Since the - 26 - impugned notification disentitled them from the process of admission to the seats to which the Indian citizens are entitled to, participate in the selection process, they prayed to quash clause 4(ii), its Proviso and Explanation (1) of the notification dated 4th March 2021. It was the contention that the notification fell foul of the doctrine of non-retrogression. The Supreme Court addressed the challenge of such nature. 3.8.3 As per the said notifications of 2005 and 2009, the OCI cardholders were given right of parity with Non-Resident Indian (NRIs) in respect of the facilities as notified, including in the field of education, in-turn had the parity to that extent with Indian citizens. As per the Notification dated 05.01.2009, the said right to education in India was extended further to appear for All India Pre- Medical Test or such other tests to make them eligible for admission. With issuance of the Notification dated 04.03.2021, the then existing right of appearing for entrance examination to compete with Indian citizens for the seats was taken away and restricted. The admission was allowed only against the seats reserved for NRIs or for supernumerary seats. This position was clarified in the proviso to clause 4(ii) of the notification as above, to provide that the OCI cardholder shall not be eligible for admission against any seat reservation exclusively for Indian citizens. It was - 27 - also provided in the explanation that the OCI cardholder is a foreign national holding passport from a foreign country and is not a citizen of India. 3.8.4 It was contended before the Supreme Court that the Notification dated 04.03.2021 so providing fell foul of the Doctrine of Non-Retrogression. Since the right which was being bestowed from the year 2005 was curtailed and reversed instead of making it progressive and mature to become better right, it was contended that thereby the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution were violated as such right is available to “any person” even if one is not a citizen of India. 3.8.5 The Supreme Court held that the State had sovereign power to issue notifications under Section 7D(1) of the Citizenship Act to confer or alter the rights as provided therein. It was held that the conferment, withdrawal, modification or alteration of the rights should be free from arbitrariness. The retroactive effect of the notification was not approved by the Supreme Court as it had the repercussion of taking away the existing rights of the OCI Cardholders given under earlier notifications, which rights were being enjoyed by the petitioners. Though the notification was sustained as having been backed by competent sovereign power - 28 - under the statute of Citizenship Act, it was held that it is sustainable prospectively only. It was ruled that the portion of the notification which provide for suppression of the earlier notifications and the Clause 4(2), its Proviso and Explanation 1 shall operate prospectively. Emanating principles 3.9 The propositions laid down in the process by the Supreme Court in Anushka Rengunthwar (supra), have beaconing value for the instant controversy. The decision operates to affirm that the rights of the OCI Cardholders arise from the statutory notification which may be issued under Section 7B(1) of 1955 Act. It is such notification within four corners of which the rights of the OCI Cardholders would stay and operate. The notification is the only home for rights, privileges and obligations which may be enjoyed by class of OCI Cardholders. Such rights are statutory right defined by statutory prescriptions in the nature of subordinate legislation. It was observed by the Supreme Court that the right of the OCI Cardholder is a midway right. 3.9.1 Following observations of Supreme Court invariably suggest that the State would be justified in treating the citizens of the Country differently against the non-citizens.-. 29 - “The decisions relied on by the learned Additional Solicitor General would indicate that this Court while considering the right claimed by a foreigner or who is not a citizen of this country has dealt with the matter differently and declined to interfere and grant any relief. If in that light, the matter is looked into, when there is no dispute to the fact that the petitioners answer the definition of “foreigners” as defined under the Foreigners Act, the said decisions relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would not apply on all fours.” (para

44) 3.9.2 It was emphasized that the right available to the OCI Cardholders is only statutory to operate within the bounds of and in terms of Section 7B(1) of the Citizenship Act, “It is no doubt true as contended by the learned Additional Solicitor General, the right available to the OCI cardholders is only the statutory right based on the right that is conferred through a notification in terms of Section 7-B(1) of the 1955 Act. Sub-section (2) thereto specifically indicates the right that cannot be conferred even under sub-section (1) through a notification.” (para

50) 3.9.3 Noticeably, the submission on behalf of the petitioners that sub-section (2) of Section 7B of 1955 Act does not exclude right under Article 14 of the Constitution and that this Article is available to be invoked, did not find favour of the Supreme Court. It was observed that the OCI Cardholders are class for themselves cannot claim parity with Indian citizens in all respects, “Article 14 of the Constitution can be invoked and contend discrimination only when persons - 30 - similarly placed are treated differently and in that view 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.” (para

53) 3.9.4 A clear proposition could be culled out from what is observed in Anushka Rengunthwar (supra), that the OCI Cardholders can enjoy any of those right and nature of rights and facilities as prescribed and provided for in the notification issued under Section 7B(1) of the Citizenship Act. It is the statutory Notification which defines and delimits the rights for the OCI Cardholders. Submissions of Petitioner 4. Having set out the aspects, facets and the contours of the controversy, the rival stand and submissions may be noted. 4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar Patil for the petitioner, after highlighting the factual aspects including that the petitioner passed the 10th standard and Pre-University Certification examination from Karnataka and that she has got requisite certificates raised the following submissions, (i) The respondents are bound to consider the petitioner’s candidature as eligible candidate for Hyderabad-Karnataka quota - 31 - admissions under clause 6(b) read with clause 11(e) of the Information Bulletin under Article 371J of the Constitution and for that purpose the petitioner is required to be grouped together with candidates who are Indian citizens. (ii) The petitioner has to be treated at par with the Indian citizen to be permitted to appear for counseling to all professional courses in general category including for conferring the benefit under Article 371J and the Karnataka Hyderabad Order, 2013. (iii) Before issuance of notification dated 4th March 2021, the candidates like petitioner were entitled to be treated as Indian citizens in the matter of admission to MBBS / BDS course. (iv) Notification dated 9th January 2024 and the Information Bulletin are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as it discriminates without any intelligible differentia between the petitioner and the students with whom the petitioner studied. (v) The petitioner is entitled to claim benefit under Article 371J of the Constitution for the reason that she and her father have studied in Hyderabad-Karnataka or Kalyana Karnataka Region. Therefore, notwithstanding the petitioner is OCI Cardholder, she is liable to be treated as Indian citizen.-. 32 - (vi) The respondents cannot take shelter under the Notification dated 9th January 2024 and Information Bulletin to deny the benefit under Article 371J of the Constitution to the petitioner. Her case is liable to be considered in general category extending the benefit under the said Article. (vii) The right of the petitioner to be considered in general category in Hyderabad-Karnataka quota/category could not be denied. (viii) Independent of the right conferred by the notification under Section 7B of the Citizenship Act, 1955, the petitioner can claim to be the citizen of India by birth and also by descent, by virtue of Section 4 of the Citizenship Act, 1955. (ix) In view of the provisions of Section 7A to 7D in the Citizenship Act, then substituted by Act 1 of 2015, the person registered as OCI Cardholder is entitled to all benefits conferred on Indian citizen and is entitled to all the benefits as Indian citizens. (x) The petitioner is entitled to be treated at par with Indian citizens and claim benefit under Article 371J when she and/her father fulfils the eligibility conditions like domicile and of putting in minimum years of study in Hyderabad-Karnataka Region.-. 33 - (xi) The denial by the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner under Article 371J of the Constitution read with Clause 6- b and 11(e) of the Information Bulletin is the negation of right in the seat allotment and chose seats in the private medical dental colleges, rendering the right to practice the profession in medicine to be illusory. Thus violates the fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. (xii) Attempt by the respondents to club the OCI Cardholders with NRIs for the purpose of eligibility is without any legal basis. When the petitioner has studied in the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region from 6th standard till II Pre University Certificate examination and that she has been residing in India, she cannot be clubbed with NRIs. 4.1.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner sought to buttress his submissions to treat the petitioner at par with the Indian citizens and to extend the benefit and permitting her to be grouped in the general category for participation in the quota of Hyderabad- Karnataka Region, by relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Anushka Rengunthwar (supra). 4.1.2 Learned advocate for the petitioner attempted to contend that in any view, what Article 371J of the Constitution - 34 - contemplates is the social representation and it is not reservation. Therefore also, there should not be impediment in permitting the petitioner to fare for the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region quota seats in general category at par with citizens of India. Stance of Karnataka Examination Authority 4.2 The statement of objections-cum-affidavit in reply filed by respondent No.2-KEA evinced its stand. It was stated and submitted that the question of rights of the OCI Cardholders to be considered for admission to professional courses is no more res integra in view of decision of Supreme Court in Anushka Rengunthwar (supra). It was a clearly stated by KEA that, ‘this respondent in obedience of the dictum of the Apex Court has allowed all OCI Cardholders to appear for the CET and also allowed them to register for allotment of seats through counseling in the professional courses’. It was stated in the same paragraph 3 of the affidavit-in-reply that, ‘this Respondent will allot Government seats to OCI/PIO candidates as was being allotted in the earlier years as per the Judgment of the Apex Court referred to supra’. 4.2.1 The following averments in paragraph 3 of the Affidavit are made, “3. This Respondent in obedience of the dictum of the Apex Court has allowed all OCI - 35 - card holders to appear for the CET and also allowed them to register for allotment of seats through counseling in the professional courses. Hence the grievance of the petitioner to this extent does not merit consideration. It is relevant to mention here that after the rendering of the Judgment by the Apex Court in W.P. 891/2021 & other connected W.Ps, Rule 5 of the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Government Seats in Professional Educational Institutions Rules, 2006 has not been amended by the State Govt. to suitably modify the same to bring in the provisions in consonance with the Apex Court Judgment regarding the admission of OCI/PIO students. In this regard, this respondent has also addressed a communication to the State Govt. Since the Information Bulletin had to be printed, in anticipation of the directions in this regard from the Government, in the Notification dated 9/1/2024, in the Eligibility Clause it is mentioned that ‘the eligibility of OCI/PIO candidates for Government seats shall be as per the directions of the Government.’ 4.2.2 In view of above stand of KEA, the prayer of the petitioner in respect of Clause 6 of the Notification dated 9th January 2024 and with regard to Clause 6.1 of the Information Bulletin is taken care of and the grievance on that score will not survive for the petitioner. 4.2.3 Learned advocate for the respondent No.2-KEA, however submitted emphatically that while the petitioner would be entitled to be treated in accordance with the law laid down in Anushka Rengunthwar (supra), her prayer to be included in the - 36 - category under Article 371J of the Constitution and to be dealt with under the Hyderabad Karnataka Order, 2013 for securing admission in the said quota and to claim the benefit of reservation is not at all grantable. It was submitted that the rights of the OCI Cardholders are governed by the Notification issued by the Central Government dated 4th March 2021 as well as earlier two notifications dated 11th April 2005 and 5th January 2009 as discussed and interpreted by the Supreme Court in Anushka Rengunthwar (supra). 4.2.4 It was submitted that the OCI Cardholders are admittedly foreigners, not entitled to claim reservation of seats meant for Indian citizens. It was further submitted that the reservation of seats under Articles 15, 16 and 30 of the Constitution are meant for the Indian citizens, the reservation of seats under Article 371J for Hyderabad-Karnataka or Kalyana Karnataka students is also to be extended to the said separate category who are Indian citizens. It was further submitted that in all earlier proceedings, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, while passing the interim orders were categorical to provide that the OCI Cardholders are to be permitted for admission in the general merit category only. It was submitted that in Writ Petition - 37 - No.11859 of 2020, this Court in the interim order provided specifically that the petitioner thereof cannot claim any reservation. Stand of Government 4.3 The stand taken by the state authorities in their statement of objections was inter alia that notification dated 4th March 2021 is treated prospective in nature in view of the decision in Anushka Rengunthwar (supra), to apply to the petitioner and all other similarly situated OCI Cardholders for their rights and privileges. Taking the uniform stand that Article 371J benefit and the special category of Kalyana Karnataka students would not be available to the petitioner in view that the said provision in the Constitution aims at uplifting those in the region identified as Hyderabad-Karnataka with lower literacy, less employment in commercial sector, lesser participation of women at work place. It was contended that there were several other social indicators showing lack of development and progress in the HK region. It was contended that in order to empower such class of citizens, Article 371J came to be engrafted into the Constitution. Submissions by Respondents 4.4 Learned Additional Solicitor General of India Mr. Arvind Kamat assisted by learned advocate Mrs. Swathi Panduranga, - 38 - prefaced his submissions by stating that the petitioner was born on 9th April 2006 in Telangana, who applied for British Citizenship and was issued the British Passport on 14th December 2012. She is the citizen of United Kingdom, it was undisputedly stated. The petitioner stayed upto 4th December 2018 in the Foreign Country- Britain. He submitted that by virtue of Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, which contemplate the circumstances leading to termination of citizenship, the petitioner’s citizenship of India ceased. It was the next submission that the petitioner as an OCI Cardholder can exercise the rights availed under Notification issued under Section 7B of the Citizenship Act. 4.4.1 Learned Additional Solicitor General explained the object of Article 371J of the Constitution, which is, he submitted, is to uplift the social backwardness. It was submitted that the said Article is a reservation for those belong to the said Region. Emphasizing the group of words ‘belong to’ used in Article 371J, it was submitted that it is indicative of attachment to the region or area and that the ‘belonging’ contemplated in the Article could be achieved only by having the citizenship of this country. It was submitted in furtherance that ‘belong to’ could be only by virtue of acquisition of the citizenship.-. 39 - 4.4.2 It was submitted that the petitioner has no affinity or belonging as such and for all purposes with the region for claiming the 371J benefit. Calling the petitioner to be a local person would be a misnomer, submitted learned Additional Solicitor General. It was then submitted that the rights of the OCI Cardholders cannot be claimed beyond the notification issued under Section 7B of the Citizenship Act. He submitted that therefore, the rationale lies in not grouping the OCI Cardholder with Indian citizen for applying 371J reservation. 4.5 Learned Additional Government Advocate Mr. M.N.Sudev Hegde for respondent Nos.1 and 3 stressed in his submissions that Article 371J is a reservation. It will not permit entry to OCI Cardholders which are a separate class not liable to be considered together with candidates eligible in the Hyderabad-Karnataka region quota. 4.6 Learned advocate Mr. N.K. Ramesh for respondent No.2- KEA made the following submissions, (a) A bare reading of Article 371J of the Constitution suggests that it is a provision in the nature of reservation. Applying this special provision in the Constitution to a class of persons governed by it, amounts to providing a reservation to them in the seats for - 40 - professional medical courses. Article 371J(2)(a) specifically uses the word ‘reservation’. (b) All reservations are coupled with element of sufferance. (c) The petitioner claims status of being “local person” under clause 4(iii) in view of her parent’s status. Both the parents are Britishers. (d) The rights of the OCI Cardholders are limited. Such rights can be withdrawn or cancelled by a stroke of pen. (e) The OCI Cardholders are considered at par with the citizens of India for the purposes mentioned in the Notifications, however they are not citizens of India. Therefore, cannot be equated with the citizens of India for all and any purposes. For applying reservation under Article 371J of the Constitution, the petitioner is a foreigner. Article 371J – A Special Provision 5. Adverting now to consideration of merits, a vain attempt was made to contend that the provision of Article 371J, though could be viewed as special provision, is not a reservation. Therefore, the petitioner can claim to be in that category at par with Indian citizen, it was submitted. This myth would stand dispelled once the history - 41 - of insertion of the Article in the Constitution is traced and the object is grasped. The said aspect may be disposed of at the outset. 5.1 As already noticed, from Article 371J of the Constitution is in respect of special provision with respect to State of Karnataka, in which one of the providence in sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of the Article is to extend equitable opportunity and facilities for the people belonging to the said Region in the matters of public employment, education and vocational training subject to the requirements of the State as a whole as per sub-Article (2). The sub-Article (2) states that an order made under sub-clause (c) of clause (1) may provide for ‘reservation’ of a proportion of seats in education institutions in the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region for the students who belong to the region. (i) Insertion 5.1.1 The legislative history which brought Article 371J into the Constitution could be gathered from 164th Report of the Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs on Constitution (One Hundred Eighteenth Amendment) Bill, 2012. Copy of the Report was made available to the court by learned additional government advocate. The Bill sought to introduce and insert new Article 371J in the Constitution which - 42 - provided for special provisions for the erstwhile Hyderabad- Karnataka Region of the State of Karnataka consisting of districts of Gulbarga, Bidar, Raichur, Koppal and Yadgir and additionally included Ballari district to accelerate the development of most backward region of the State. 5.1.2 The introduction of the Article was evolved on the basis of the existing models in Article 371D in respect of Telangana and Article 371(2) relating to Vidharba Region. Article 371D provides reservations for the residents of Telangana in the matters of employment opportunities and educational facilities. Article 371(2) makes provision to promote economic development in Vidharba, Marathwada and rest of Maharashtra Region. (ii) Background 5.1.3 What was considered while inserting Article 371J was that during the reorganization of the States on linguistic basis, the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region which formed part of erstwhile Hyderabad State, came to be integrated with the State of Karnataka. The erstwhile State of Hyderabad under the Nizam’s Rule was extremely backward in terms of socio-economic development which consisted different districts which were included in the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region. The Ballari district - 43 - which was included last, was originally administered as part of Madras Residency. The Government of Karnataka had forwarded a proposal to the Government of India in the year 1998 to amend Article 371 of the Constitution so as to provide similar provisions in respect of Hyderabad-Karnataka Region on the lines of Article 371D of the Constitution. 5.1.4 At one stage, the request of the State Government did not go through, subsequently the State Cabinet in the meeting held on 4th September 2012 considered and approved the proposal to accord special status to the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region in the State of Karnataka which led to introduction of Constitution (One Hundred Eighteenth Amendment) Bill, 2012 in the Lok Sabha on 7th September 2012 for insertion of Article 371J combining the elements in Article 371D and Article 371(2) of the Constitution. 5.1.5 While considering the insertion of Article 371J as special provision, the social indicators in the region in its different districts and divisions were considered. Also surveyed and considered were the details and data of health infrastructure, comparative position of literacy, employment in Government Sector, skill gaps and all other aspects.-. 44 - (iii) Survey Presentation 5.1.6 A High Power Committee gone into all the above aspects. The Committee took note of the book entitled ‘Inclusive Growth-371 for Development of Hyderabad-Karnataka Region’ written by Dr. Shalini Rajneesh, Dr. Chaya Degaonkar and Smt. Sangeet N Kattimani, which reflected that the region was in the trap of backwardness. There was a Dr. Najundappa’s Report. 5.1.7 The representatives of the state government of Karnataka gave a detailed presentation in support of the proposed Bill for inserting special provision which dealt with the areas of deficiencies, infrastructural shortcomings, potentiality of development and the measures needed to remove the bottlenecks for all-round development. The reservation in education and in employment was advocated. (iv) Object and Reasons 5.1.8 It is with the above background that the Bill was introduced in the Parliament to insert Article 371J in the Constitution. According to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill, the proposed Article 371 J makes special provisions to establish an institutional mechanism for equitable allocation of funds to meet the development needs over the Hyderabad- - 45 - Karnataka region, as well as to enhance human resources and promote employment from the region by providing for local cadres in service and reservation in educational and vocational training institutions by an amendment to the Constitution of India. 5.1.9 The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill further stipulates that the Article 371J in the form of a special provision seeks to provide for: (a) establishment of a separate Development Board for the aforesaid region mentioned above; (b) provide for equitable allocation of funds for development over the said region subject to the requirements of the State as a whole; (c) provide reservation in public employment through the constitution of local cadres for domiciles of the region; and (d) provide for reservation in education and vocational training institutions for domiciles of the region. Article 371J is Reservation 5.2 In view of the very nature of the provision in Article 371J of the Constitution, its legislative history and the background which led to its introduction and insertion in the Constitution, leave no room of doubt that it is a Constitutional provision in the nature of reservation. Reservation is a special facility where the general - 46 - object is to uplift, ameliorate and elevate the status of the people of an area or region who have remained backward in the social- educational field. The object is to extend them the opportunity and the accessibility to such opportunity through the special treatment which may be extended to them. 5.2.1 When special treatment in the nature of reservation in the field of education is extended to the class of student candidates, they become a specified targeted or intended class for upliftment and for availing them the opportunities. In this case, the students who hail from and belong to the Hyderabad-Karnataka region or Kalyana Karnataka region as is described, is a special class of students to whom the seats for admission to the professional courses are offered. 5.2.2 They are the earmarked class for the specially intended purpose of Article 371J of the Constitution, which has its own object to be achieved, namely their upliftment and to elevate them in terms of opportunities. The class of students from Hyderabad-Karnataka Region to be treated for the purpose of reservation under Article 371J for admission to professional courses like MBBS and BDS are the definite distinct class.-. 47 - 5.2.3 In the above context, the submission of learned Additional Solicitor General that the phrase ‘belong to’ used in Article 371J has its own significance, could not be brushed aside lightly. The beneficial provision under Article 371J is to be made to extend to those candidate students who are said to be ‘belonging to the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region’. They must have affiliation to the region which may not be just in terms of physical concept of domicile or they claim to be the local persons. 5.2.4 The ‘local person’ as per paragraph 4 of the Karnataka Hyderabad Order is only in the context of Article 371J of the Constitution. It would therefore not include the OCI Cardholders, who are not citizens of India. The benefit of Article 371J and the reservation quota in that category has to go to citizens of India belonging to that region. A Foreign National like the petitioner cannot have and will not have such a claim. 5.2.5 The intent of Article 371J is to empower a special class of citizens. It is with such avowed purpose that the Parliament, after indepth study of backwardness and bottlenecks in terms of developmental opportunities in the region, engrafted Article 371J of the Constitution. Sub-clause (a) of clause (2) of this Article provide for ‘reservations’ in the educational institutions for those residing in - 48 - the region, for those who belong to the region, for those who need the opportunities in the educational field so that they could be brought into the common stream of the society, not allowing them to be lagged behind only because they belong to a region that lack infrastructure, opportunities and having bottlenecks for educational progress. 5.2.6 The petitioner is a citizen of United Kingdom. Candidate like petitioner who is Foreign National has climbed upward social mobility. The context of benefit accorded under Article 371J of the Constitution does not befit to be extended to such segment or class of candidates. Not only that they constitute a different class with different characteristics, they could therefore, not be allowed to take away the benefits of reservation from those who are deserving. In this view, the claim of the petitioner to be clubbed together and to be received in a special category under Article 371J is not tenable either on facts or in law. Circumscribed Class 5.3 The OCI cardholders are a circumscribed class. They draw and owe their existence with such nomenclature from the provision of Section 7A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. They are for all purposes, foreigners or citizens of foreign country. In other words, - 49 - not citizens of India. Even if the petitioner was earlier an Indian citizen, with voluntarily get registered herself under Section 7A of the Citizenship Act as an OCI Cardholder, the citizenship of this Country stood terminated in terms of Section 9 of the Citizenship Act. It provides that when any citizens of India who by naturalization, registration or otherwise voluntarily acquires citizenship of another country, upon such acquisition ceases to be a citizen of India. The petitioner is a citizen of United Kingdom registered to have status of OCI Cardholder. 5.3.1 The status of a Registered Overseas Citizen of India is conferred on them under the statutory provisions of the Citizenship Act. Further more, the rights or privileges as well as the obligations of the OCI cardholders is governed under Section 7B of the Act. 5.3.2 As already noted hereinabove, sub-section (1) of Section 7B says that the OCI cardholder shall be entitled to such rights as the Central Government may notify by Notification. Sub- section (2) mentions those rights which cannot be conferred on the OCI cardholder, which are otherwise available to a citizen of India. Therefore, the proposition that the rights, the petitioner and any similarly situated OCI Cardholder can claim are only those which are set out in the notifications which may be issued by the Central - 50 - Government under Section 7B(1) of the Act. In other words, the rights of the petitioner-OCI cardholder and the exercisability of such rights cannot travel beyond the Notifications dated 11.04.2005, 05.01.2009 and 04.03.2021 aforementioned issued under Section 7B(1) of the Citizenship Act. The other provisions which attend to the rights and obligations of the OCI cardholders are Section 7C regarding renunciation of OCI cardholder and cancellation of registration as OCI cardholder is provided in Section 7D of the Act. Different Characteristics 5.4 Having noticed the nature and object of Article 371J of the Constitution and the history of its introduction to the Constitution and further in view of the status which could be accredited to a OCI Cardholder like the petitioner, it is safe to view that the category of students who may be extended the benefit under Article 371J constitute altogether a different and heterogeneous class, in which the OCI cardholders cannot have any role. The OCI cardholders are bound in law to be treated not only as different class than the class of candidates under Article 371J, but the OCI cardholders are class by themselves whose status is statutorily defined.-. 51 - 5.4.1 The OCI cardholders and the citizens of India do not belong to same categories in several sense, except as contemplated in the Notification dated 04.03.2021 and as per the interpretation to the said Notification attached by the Supreme Court in Anushka Rengunthwar (supra). It can even be viewed that the parity in terms of educational right given to the OCI cardholders is in the limited sense. The parity does not make the OCI cardholders in the same group to that of citizens of India. 5.4.2 Although for extending opportunities, the OCI cardholders are treated at the same pedestal. Being on the same pedestal for some specific purpose would not mean that the two are homogenous in all respect. The class characteristics of OCI cardholders are defined in terms of the Notifications issued under Section 7B(1) of the Citizenship Act. Their rights and privileges are also defined and delimited accordingly. The parity is of a special kind, made to operate for specific purpose in a confined area. 5.4.3 The contention of the petitioners herein that their exclusion from the category of beneficiaries under Article 371J of the Constitution for the purpose of admission in that quota is violative of their fundamental rights, have no legs to stand in light of the law laid down in that regard by the Supreme Court, which - 52 - decisions were considered by the Supreme Court in Anushka Rengunthwar (supra). 5.4.4 In Izhar Ahmed Khan v. Union of India [AIR1962SC1052 was referred to, to quote therefrom, “It may prima facie sound somewhat surprising, but it is nevertheless true, that though the citizens of India are guaranteed the fundamental rights specified in Article 19 of the Constitution, the status of citizenship on which the existence or continuance of the said rights rests is itself not one of the fundamental rights guaranteed to anyone. If a law is properly passed by the Parliament affecting the status of citizenship of any citizens in the country, it can be no challenge to the validity of the said law that if affects the fundamental rights of those whose citizenship is thereby terminated. Article 19 proceeds on the assumption that the person who claims the rights guaranteed by it is a citizen of India. If the basic status of citizenship is validly terminated by a Parliamentary statute, the person whose citizenship is validly terminated by a Parliamentary statute, the person whose citizenship is terminated has no right to claim the fundamental rights under Article 19.” (para

38) 5.4.5 In Louis De Raedt v. Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC554, it was observed that rights under Article 19(1)(d) and 19(1)(e) are unavailable to the foreigners as they are the rights conferred only to the citizens. Significantly, it was stated, “Certainly the machinery of Article 14 cannot be invoked to obtain their fundamental right.” - 53 - 5.4.6 Any case and contention of the petitioner herein when sought to be raised on the aforesaid counts, lacks merit and is unacceptable. The contention that the persons with disability are given reservation is misconceived in view of the principle that the PwD category persons are different class and received different treatment in law. Domicile And Citizenship 5.5 Pausing a little, the submission and contention of the petitioner that she falls with the purview of ‘local person’, entitled to the benefit of Article 371J and that the Hyderabad-Karnataka Order, 2013 would govern her rights of admission, may be attended to. It was harped on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is a local person, as she has put requisite years of studies in the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region and that she could be said to have the domicile of the region and on that basis, she is entitled to be considered for the beneficial reservation under Article 371J.

5.5.1 It would be then relevant to notice the conceptual and jurisprudential distinction between the domicile and citizenship. In Shri D.P. Joshi Vs. State of Madhya Bharat and Another, (AIR1955SC334, the Supreme Court observed and explained, - 54 - “... But citizenship and domicile represent two different conceptions. Citizenship has reference to the political status of a person, and domicile to his civil rights. A classic statement of the law on this subject is that of Lord Westbury in Udny v. Udny, [(1869) LR1Sc & Div 441 at 457].. He observes:

"The law of England, and of almost all civilised countries, ascribes to each individual at his birth two distinct legal states or conditions: one by virtue of which he becomes the subject of some particular country binding him by the tie of national allegiance, and which may be called his political status, another by virtue of which be has ascribed to him the character of a citizen of some particular country and as such is possessed of certain municipal rights, and subject to certain obligations, which latter character is the civil status or condition of the individual, and may be quite different from his political status. The political status may depend on different laws in different countries; whereas the civil status is governed universally by one single principle, namely, that of domicile, which is the criterion established by law for the purpose of determining civil status. For it is on this basis that the personal rights of the party, that is to say, the law which determines his majority or minority, his marriage, succession, testacy or intestacy, must depend". (para

7) 5.5.2 The Supreme Court stated that under the Constitution, Article 5 which defines citizenship itself proceeds on the basis that it is different from domicile, because under that Article, domicile is not by itself sufficient to confer on a person the status of a citizenship of this country.-. 55 - 5.5.3 The view was expressed in the following observations that the law knows only of domicile of a country. It was stated that domicile has limited reference to the system of law prevails. “A more serious question is that as the law knows only of domicile of a country as a whole and not of any particular place therein, whether there can be such a thing as Madhya Bharat domicile apart from Indian domicile. To answer this question we must examine what the word "domicile" in law imports. When we speak of a person as having a domicile of a particular country, we mean that in certain matters such as succession minority and marriage he is governed by the law of that country. Domicile has reference to the system of law by which a person is governed, and when we speak of the domicile of a country, we assume that the same system of law prevails all over that country. But it might well happen that laws relating to succession and marriage might not be the same all over the country, and that different areas in the State might have different laws in respect of those matters. In that case, each area having a distinct set of laws would itself be regarded as a country for the purpose of domicile.” (para

8) 5.5.4 In Abdur Rahaman v. State [AIR1964Patna 384]., which was a judgment relied by learned Additional Solicitor General, the following observations are found, distinguishing between domicile and citizenship, by referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Central Bank of India v. Ramnarayan [AIR1955SC36, extracting from paragraph 14 of the Patna High Court judgment, - 56 - “A person may have one nationality or citizenship and a different domicile or he may have a domicile but no nationality. Ordinarily, domicile has not the effect of altering a person’s nationality. In a state, a person may be a member of civil society alone as distinguished from political society. His membership of the political society determines his political status or nationality on which depends his permanent allegiance, or personal association to his sovereign. His membership of the civil society of a particular locality, that is his domicile, determines his civil status. In other words, domicile implies connection with a territory, not membership or community, which lies at the root of the notion of ‘citizenship’ or ‘nationality’.

5.5.5 In other words, the citizenship is a political status whereas the domicile may carry with him certain civil rights. When a foreign national is registered under Section 7A of the Citizenship Act as OCI cardholder, a kind of political status is granted to him to enjoy certain rights which may be conferrable under the law and not beyond that. This status of OCI cardholdership will override the idea of domicile for the claimed classification as local person or having a domicile, when it comes to conferment of benefits to the OCI cardholders. For the reasons that the rights and obligations of the OCI cardholders remain within the bounds of law as prescribed under the law. Concept of Local Person 5.6 Even otherwise and decisively, the concept of “local person” envisaged in paragraph 4 of the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region - 57 - Order, 2013 has the limited context of Article 371J for its applicability. For this purpose, the claimed status of local person is of no avail, even if one goes with the case of the petitioner, when the petitioner is not Indian citizen but belongs to altogether different category-OCI cardholder. Article 371J of the Constitution provides reservation to the candidates of local area. 5.6.1 The petitioner has no sufferings of local area. She is having no element of permanency belonging to local area. The concept of local person encapsulated in paragraph 4 and the concept of “belong to” advocated under Article 371J and the idea of “local person” contemplated in paragraph 4 of the Hyderabad- Karnataka Region Order, 2013 cannot be without the element of affinity of affiliation with the region. 5.6.2 The eligibility as a local person cannot be merely on the basis of domicile. The eligibility is subject to the candidate being citizen of India. In the concept of local person as mentioned for the purpose of Article 371J, the citizenship is inbuilt and indispensable. The petitioner is a citizen of United Kingdom but holding OCI cardholdership could hardly be considered to be qualified to be grouped alongwith the category of the students who - 58 - are eligible and entitled to seek the benefit under Article 371J of the Constitution. 5.6.3 In the discussion to follow, it is delineated and explained how the class of persons to be governed for the purpose of Article 371J and the class of OCI Cardholders are distinct and separate classes and that such classification has rational and intelligible differentia to be backed by. Valid Differentia A Mode of Equality 5.7 The true scope of Article 14 of the Constitution is not to equalize in every situation and in all set of circumstances, even where the class of persons to be governed under Article 14 possesses different traits and characteristics to make them different than one another. 5.7.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal Vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar [(1952) 1 SCC1 highlighted the scope of Article 14 in following words, “... the Article assures to everyone the same rules of evidence and modes of procedure. In other words, the same rule must exist for all in similar circumstances. This principle, however, does not mean that every law must have universal application for all persons who are not by nature, attainment or circumstance, in the same position.” (para

63) - 59 - 5.7.2 In very Anwar Ali Sarkar (supra), the Supreme Court lucidly explained about the valid process of classification to explain as to when the classification in tune with Article 14 of the Constitution would be permissible. It was stated that by the process of classification, the State has power of determining who should be regarded as a class for the purposes of legislation and in relation to a law enacted on a particular subject. The Court was conscious to state that this power, may in some degree is likely to produce some inequality. 5.7.3 It proceeded to observe, “... but if a law deals with the liberties of a number of well-defined classes, it is not open to the charge of denial of equal protection on the ground that it has no application to other persons. The classification permissible, however, must be based on some real and substantial distinction bearing a just and reasonable relation to the objects sought to be attained and cannot be made arbitrarily and without any substantial basis. Classification thus means segregation in classes which have a systematic relation, usually found in common properties and characteristics. It postulates a rational basis and does not mean herding together of certain persons and classes arbitrarily.” (para

64) 5.7.4 It is well established that Article 14 forbids class legislation but does not debars reasonable classification. The test of permissible classification are twined. The first is that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which - 60 - distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group. The second test is to be applied is that the differentia must have a rational relation and nexus to the object sought to be achieved. 5.7.5 These two tests for valid classification stand satisfied in not grouping the OCI cardholder with the category of beneficiaries under Article 371J of the Constitution. The classification may be founded on different bases such as geographical according to the objects or occupations or the like. 5.7.6 When the OCI cardholders are to be treated as different class not to be a part of the beneficiary candidates for reservation under Article 371J of the Constitution, the differentia is founded on the considerations of status of the OCI cardholders in eye of law. The fact that they are non-citizens and the very object of reservation under Article 371J to select the beneficiaries the differentiation made for the OCI cardholders like the petitioner to justify their exclusion has to seek purview of Article 371J as constitutional and statutory base, more solid than the other constitution.-. 61 - Reasonable Classification 5.8 Treating the OCI Cardholder such as the petitioner is, to be outside the purview of beneficial category of students under Article 371J of the Constitution has its own rationale and legal sanction. In Anushka Rengunthwar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with one of the submissions of the Additional Solicitor General touched the aspect, which observations strengthens the proposition that exclusion of foreigners from a beneficial provision available to Indian citizen has a sovereign logic, “... for any sovereign country, the rights and privileges that are extended to the non-citizens are in exercise of inviolable sovereign powers and are essentially unfettered and unqualified. The courts have consistently declined to interfere in visa, immigration or such issues relating to foreigners. The power of exclusion of foreigners being an incident of sovereignty is that of the Government to be exercised. The OCI regime is a privilege extended by the Parliament and the Executive, falling squarely in the domain of the sovereign policy of the country.

5.8.1 It was further stated, “The citizenship is regulated in Part II (Articles 5 to

11) of the Constitution of India pursuant to which the Citizenship Act is enacted to regulate the same. Section 2(ee) of the Citizenship Act defines OCI cardholders to mean a person registered as an Overseas Citizens of India cardholder by the Central Government under Section 7-A of the Act. The learned Additional Solicitor General on referring to the said constitutional provisions and the Citizenship Act - 62 - would point out that the privilege of securing education in India was pursuant to the conferment of the same in terms of Section 7-B of the Act by the issue of notification.” (para

14) 5.8.2 The tests of reasonable classification which Article 14 of the Constitution would permit, are well settled. Different circumstances and different trappings attached to one class of persons would make such class a distinct class for the purpose of application of Article 14 of the Constitution. The persons with different characteristic, places differently or attached with different circumstances could be classified differently. Even a single valid difference amongst the group of persons would in a given case, would justify the classification. Such classification would not offend the Equality Clause. 5.8.3 In State of Kerala Vs. N.M. Thomas [(1976) 2 SCC310, the rule of parity and the rule of differentiation came to be highlighted by the Supreme Court in the following explicit observations, “The rule of parity is the equal treatment of equals in equal circumstances. The rule of differentiation is enacting laws differentiating between different persons or things in different circumstances. The circumstances which govern one set of persons or objects may not necessarily be the same as those governing another set of persons or objects so that the question of unequal treatment does not really arise between persons governed by different - 63 - conditions and different sets of circumstances. The principle of equality does not mean that every law must have universal application for all persons who are not by nature, attainment or circumstances in the same position and the varying needs of different classes of persons require special treatment. ...” (para 40.3) 5.8.4 The Supreme Court proceeded to observe that the Legislature understands and appreciates the need of its own people, that its laws are directed to problems made manifest by experience and that its discriminations are based upon adequate grounds. The rule of classification is not a natural and logical corollary of the rule of equality, but the rule of differentiation is inherent in the concept of equality. Equality means parity of treatment under parity of conditions. 5.8.5 The proposition was stated that equality does not connote absolute equality. A classification in order to be constitutional must rest on distinctions that are substantial and not merely illusory. It was stated that the test is whether there is a reasonable basis for classification free from artificiality and arbitrariness for not embracing altogether and dividing with rational omission. 5.8.6 The classification between the class of persons who would be beneficiary under Article 371J of the Constitution and the - 64 - class of OCI Cardholders is not only a classification which stands defined by relevant parameters, this classification has constitutional and statutory support. Article 371J of the Constitution and its purpose and object are the bedrock, whereas, the statutory trappings identified with the class of OCI Cardholders under the provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955 makes a legal distinction of such class vis-a-vis the class under Article 371J of the Constitution. Differentiation For Parity 5.9 The differentiation often becomes necessary to bring out the state of equality itself. By treating the two classes differently, the equality which otherwise would remain a valid discrimination would be achieved. The true concept of parity has its own several shades and dimensions by making a valid classification, equality is achieved. In ultimate analysis, equality would expand when the classification is based on valid criteria. 5.9.1 The parity in law has its own connotation and contours. When the OCI cardholders are classified differently to be not included in the category under Article 371J of the Constitution, the differentiation is substantial and indeed not illusory. By the very kind and nature of OCI cardholdership and for the very reason that - 65 - they are differently governed in law, renders the classification substantial and rational. 5.9.2 In K.Thimmappa Vs. State Bank of India, [(2001) 2 SCC259, the Apex Court observed to lay down that when a law is challenged to be discriminatory essentially on the ground that it denies equal treatment or protection, the question for determination by the Court is not whether it has resulted in inequality but whether there is some differentia which bears a just and reasonable relation to the object of Legislation. This dictum of law pointedly apply to the facts of this case. 5.9.3 Having regard to the object for which Article 371J is inserted in the Constitution, the category of the candidates for admission to professional courses thereunder not only possesses the differentia and separate characteristics to become a distinct class to be valid in eye of law, this differentia has a rational and reasonable nexus to the object to be carried out for the category of beneficiaries under Article 371J, for, the provision intends to uplift the deprived class of Hyderabad-Karnataka Region giving them reservation and additional opportunity in the field of education. 5.9.4 In Anushka Rengunthwar (supra), the Supreme Court observed in paragraph 41 that “mere differentiation does not - 66 - per se amount to discrimination within the inhibition of the equal protection clause.” The OCI cardholders who are the foreign citizens cannot claim the equation with the beneficiary class governed by the object and purpose of the Article.

6. In view of the stand taken by respondent No.2-Karnataka Examination Authority in its affidavit-cum-reply and more particularly in light of what is laid down in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Anushka Rengunthwar (supra), the eligibility contemplated for consideration of the petitioner for admission to professional courses in Clause 6 of the Notification dated 9th January 2024 and Clause 6.1 of the Information Bulletin shall not apply, excepting for category under Article 371J of the Constitution as held above. 6.1 Notwithstanding that the petitioner is not a citizen of India, she shall be treated for the purpose of admission to the professional courses in accordance with the law laid down in Anushka Rengunthwar (supra) by the Apex Court. 6.2 In that view, the condition that ‘no candidate shall be eligible for admission to government seats unless he is citizen of India’ will not attach debility for the petitioner as stated in para 6.1 above for the reason that the rights conferred under Notification dated 4th - 67 - March 2021 and the decision in that regard in Anushka Rengunthwar (supra), would govern. 6.3 The relief to the aforesaid extent is allowed to the petitioner. 6.4 In light of the foregoing reasons and discussion, following is held and declared, (i) The rights of the petitioner as OCI Cardholder registered under Section 7A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, shall be governed, for the purpose of admission to the professional courses, in accordance with Notifications of the Central Government issued under Section 7B(1) of the 1955 Act, and as per the interpretation attached thereto it by the Supreme Court in Anushka Rengunthwar (supra). (ii) Neither the aforesaid Notification dated 4th March 2021, nor the decision of the Supreme Court in Anushka Rengunthwar (supra), deal with the entitlement of the persons such as petitioner who is OCI Cardholder, to be extended the benefit under Article 371J of the Constitution and for that purpose, Karnataka Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission in Hyderabad-Karnataka Region) Order, 2013.-. 68 - (iii) As per the reasons supplied in the present judgment, the category of beneficiaries under Article 371J and for that purpose Karnataka Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission in Hyderabad-Karnataka Region) Order, 2013, are distinct and separate class, when juxtaposed with the class of persons who have the status of OCI Cardholders under Section 7A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. (iv) Both the above classes are distinct classes with distinct characteristics in facts and in law, not comparable, nor liable to be grouped together for the purpose of admissions under the Hyderabad-Karnataka or Kalyana Karnataka quota under Article 371J of the Constitution. (v) Article 371J contemplates and provides for reservation. It is a special provision to be applied to the specified category, which is again a special category to be extended the benefit of reservation, and in whom the petitioner and like persons would not include. For the several reasons enumerated, the petitioner does not have the homogeneity to be treated alike under Article 371J of the Constitution. (vi) The definition of ‘local person’ conceptualized in Clause 4 of the Karnataka Educational Institutions - 69 - (Regulation of Admission in Hyderabad-Karnataka Region) Order, 2013, could be said to be delimited with reference to the category of the persons-students for the benefit of reservation under Article 371J of the Constitution. (vii) The provision of Article 371J of the Constitution does not cover the class of OCI Cardholders and to such class the Article shall not have the application. Article 371J shall not be available to the petitioner-OCI Cardholder. The prayer of the petitioner to be included for the benefit under Article 371J of the Constitution is declined.

7. The present petition stands declared and disposed of as above. Sd/- (N.V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K.V. ARAVIND) JUDGE AHB