SC junks Punjab's plea against HC verdict on NRI quota, says fraud must end

Terming it a “complete fraud” and a “money spinning tactic”, the Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed the Punjab Government's petition challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court verdict setting aside its decision to expand the definition of ‘NRI quota' for admissions in MBBS and BDS courses in the state's medical colleges.

“Let us put a lid on this. This NRI business is nothing but a fraud. This comes to an end now. What is a word? You just have to say I am looking after X. See the students who got three times high (marks) have lost out. We cannot lend our authority to something which is blatantly illegal,” a Bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said, dismissing petitions filed by the Punjab Government and others.

Through a notification issued on August 20, the Punjab Government had widened the definition of an NRI candidate to include distant relatives such as uncles, aunts, grandparents, and cousins of NRIs for admissions under the 15% NRI quota for admissions in MBBS/BDS courses.

However, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on September 10 quashed the notification on the ground that the widening of definition of NRI opened the door for its potential misuse, allowing individuals who didn’t fall within the original intent of the policy to take advantage of NRI seats, potentially bypassing more deserving candidates.

Agreeing with the high court’s decision, the top court said, “We must stop this NRI quota business now! This is complete fraud and this is what we are doing to our education system! Judges know what they are dealing with. The high court has dealt with the case threadbare.”

“Look at the deleterious consequences... the candidates who have three times higher marks (in NEET-UG) will lose admission,” the Bench said, adding the high court verdict was “absolutely right”.

“You (Punjab Government) say the nearest relation of an NRI will also be considered. A ward is also anyone's ward. What is this? This is just a money spinning tactic of the state,” said the Bench which also included Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra.

Noting that distant relatives of a ‘mama, tai, taya' settled abroad will get admissions ahead of meritorious candidates under the widened definition of NRI, the Bench said it can’t be allowed.

On behalf of the petitioners, senior advocate Shadan Farasat sought to defend the August 20 notification, saying other states, including Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Chandigarh, followed somewhat similar definitions of NRI. But the Bench didn’t agree with his submissions.