Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Thus, apparently the OCI Cardholders are placed on par with the Non-resident Indians under the amended definition; the expressions "persons of Indian origin" and "Overseas Citizens of India" occuring in this definition, as rightly concurred by the Bar, are construed as referring to the "Overseas Citizens of India Cardholders" in view of later Parliamentary amendments to the 1955 Act.

(b) Admittedly, 2006 Act is enacted by the Karnataka State Legislature under Article 246(2) r/w. Entry-25 of List-III (Concurrent List) of 7th Schedule to the Constitution. By virtue of above inclusive definition of Non- resident Indian, the OCI Cardholders have been equated with the NRI students and consequently their educational rights are made co-terminus with those of NRIs; this was perfectly alright with the Central Government Notification dated 11.04.2005 since it conspicuously had placed the OCI Cardholders on par with the NRIs so far as their educational "facilities" were concerned and that there was no conflict between the two, then.

(c) The educational rights of OCI Cardholders, however, have been progressively widened under paragraph

(b) of the aforesaid Central Government Notification dated 06.01.2009 whereunder the parity that existed between them and the NRIs earlier under 2005 Notification, has been specifically removed, yielding some more rights to them, as a matter of policy; thus, the definition of Non- resident Indian u/S. 2(d) to the extent it ropes in, the OCI Cardholders and places them on par with the NRIs being over-inclusive militates against the additional conferment of educational rights made under this Notification; thus, there is noticeable repugnance between the operational definition of Non-resident Indian and the 2009 Notification guaranteeing educational rights to the OCI Cardholders.

(c) Rule 5 to the extent it prescribes citizenship as a precondition for availing admission to Government Seats cannot be enforced against the OCI Cardholders because such prescription denies the educational rights that are conferred on them by the 2009 Notification issued by the Delegate of the Parliament u/s. 7B of 1955 Act; strangely, even whatever lesser Educational Rights that are otherwise available under 2005 Notification which prescribed the parity between them and the NRIs also stand denuded by virtue of this Rule; thus, there is a rank repugnancy between the Central Law i.e. the Notifications of 2005 & 2009 and the State Law i.e., Rule 5; therefore, this Rule cannot be enforced against the OCI Cardholders, although the issue as to its enforceability against other foreigners, not being the subject matter of these Writ Petitions, is left open; it is noteworthy that Rule 5 cannot be held unconstitutional so far as other foreigners since the Central Law occupies the field only qua the OCI Cardholders, going by the assumption that both the Central Law and the State Law are relatable to Entry-25 of List-III.

15. WHETHER OCI CARDHOLDERS BEING THE FOREIGNERS ENJOY MORE RIGHTS THAN NON-

RESIDENT INDIANS WHO ARE CITIZENS?

(a) The contention of Mr. Ponnanna that construing 2009 Notification as bestowing more rights on the OCI Cardholders qua the Non-resident Indians sounds illogical since such a construction would undermine the rights of the true citizens of the country i.e. the NRIs on the face of it appears attractive, but a closure scrutiny dis-covers its fallacy; the truth is that, there have been very many rights that avail to the Non-resident Indians as citizens of this country which non-citizens do not have; sub-section 2 of 7B specifically excludes all important rights from being conferred on the OCI Cardholders.