The Bombay High Court at Nagpur has directed state authorities to reconsider the admission eligibility of Overseas Citizen of India cardholders who obtained status before 4 March 2021, affirming their right to compete for open general category seats in veterinary courses. This order aligns with the Supreme Court’s binding precedent in Anushka Rengunthwar and reinforces the principle that OCI status must not be arbitrarily restricted to reserved quotas when constitutional equality is at stake.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Dr. Shrirang S/o Ganpat Trimbak Dabhade, is an OCI cardholder who acquired OCI status prior to 4 March 2021. He sought admission to the Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry (B.V.Sc. & A.H.) degree course in Maharashtra. Despite meeting all academic and eligibility criteria, he was barred from applying under the open/general category and was restricted to the NRI/FN/PIO/OCI quota seats only. He contended that this restriction violates the principle of equality and the binding precedent set by the Supreme Court in Anushka Rengunthwar and Others v. Union of India and Others (2023) 11 SCC 209.
Key Facts
- The petitioner acquired OCI status before 4 March 2021, as per the provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955
- He fulfilled all academic qualifications required for admission to B.V.Sc. & A.H. courses
- State admission authorities restricted OCI cardholders to a separate quota, excluding them from the general/open category
- The restriction was based on internal state guidelines, not any statutory provision
- The Supreme Court in Anushka Rengunthwar (2023) held that OCI cardholders who acquired status before 4 March 2021 are entitled to compete for general category seats in professional courses
Procedural History
- 15 April 2026: Writ Petition No. 3015 of 2026 filed before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench
- 15 April 2026: Hearing conducted before Justices Anil S. Kilor and Raj D. Wakode
- 15 April 2026: Court delivered judgment and issued directions
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
The petitioner argued that the state’s refusal to allow OCI cardholders to compete for general category seats is arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Anushka Rengunthwar. He emphasized that the restriction lacks statutory backing and violates Article 14 of the Constitution. He further submitted that the Supreme Court’s judgment is binding on all state authorities and must be implemented without delay.
For the Respondents
The State of Maharashtra, through the Assistant Government Pleader, did not contest the applicability of the Supreme Court judgment but stated that internal policy implementation required time. Respondent No.2, the admitting authority, did not file a separate written submission but relied on existing administrative guidelines.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a direction to the respondents to permit OCI cardholders who acquired status before 4 March 2021 to apply for and be considered for admission under the open/general category seats in all veterinary colleges in Maharashtra, in accordance with the judgment in Anushka Rengunthwar.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether OCI cardholders who acquired status before 4 March 2021 are entitled to compete for general category seats in professional courses under the binding precedent of Anushka Rengunthwar v. Union of India, and whether state authorities may lawfully restrict them to a separate quota.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Anushka Rengunthwar v. Union of India (2023) 11 SCC 209, which held that OCI cardholders who acquired status before 4 March 2021 are entitled to be considered for admission under the general category in professional courses, including medical and veterinary education. He argued that the state’s policy of segregating them into a separate quota is arbitrary, violates Article 14, and ignores a binding constitutional precedent. He further cited State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar to emphasize that classification must have a rational basis, which the restriction lacks.
For the Respondent/State
The State did not dispute the legal force of the Supreme Court’s judgment. The Assistant Government Pleader acknowledged the precedent but stated that administrative compliance required time for policy revision. No counter-legal argument was advanced to justify the continued exclusion of OCI cardholders from general category seats.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the Supreme Court in Anushka Rengunthwar had comprehensively examined the constitutional rights of OCI cardholders and held that they are entitled to compete for general category seats in professional courses, provided they acquired OCI status before 4 March 2021. The Court noted that the judgment was not merely advisory but a binding declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution.
"The distinction between OCI cardholders and Indian citizens for the purpose of admission to general category seats, in the absence of any reasonable classification, violates the principle of equality under Article 14."
The Court further held that the state’s continued application of a restrictive admission policy, despite the Supreme Court’s clear direction, amounts to non-compliance with constitutional obligations. The Court rejected any notion that administrative convenience or policy inertia could override a binding judicial pronouncement.
The Court emphasized that the petitioner’s grievance is not speculative but directly grounded in a precedent that has already settled the legal position. The state’s failure to implement the judgment constitutes a continuing violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights.
The Verdict
The petition was disposed of with directions. The Court directed Respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner’s grievance and implement the judgment in Anushka Rengunthwar by allowing OCI cardholders who acquired status before 4 March 2021 to apply for general category seats in B.V.Sc. & A.H. admissions within two weeks from 15 April 2026. The decision must be communicated to the petitioner within one week thereafter.
What This Means For Similar Cases
OCI Cardholders Are Not a Separate Class for General Admissions
- Practitioners must now argue that any admission policy segregating OCI cardholders (pre-2021) from general category seats is legally untenable
- Educational institutions across India must revise admission brochures and online portals to reflect this entitlement
- State education departments must issue circulars to all professional colleges to ensure compliance
Judicial Precedent Overrides Administrative Policy
- Administrative guidelines cannot override binding Supreme Court judgments
- Courts will not tolerate delay or inaction in implementing constitutional rights
- Non-compliance may invite contempt proceedings or further writ relief
Proactive Compliance Required in Professional Courses
- This ruling applies not only to veterinary courses but also to MBBS, BDS, B.Tech, and other professional programs
- Institutions must review their admission criteria for all categories and remove any discriminatory quotas
- Students and parents may now challenge exclusionary policies in writ petitions with greater legal certainty
