Doctrine of Non-Retrogression Upholds Existing Rights of OCI Cardholders in Admission to Medical Courses

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India, in the landmark case of ANUSHKA RENGUNTHWAR v. UNION OF INDIA (2023 INSC 99), deliberated on the constitutional validity of a government notification that altered the educational rights of Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) cardholders. The petitioner, Anushka Rengunthwar, along with other OCI holders, challenged the notification dated March 4, 2021, which restricted their eligibility to secure admissions into medical courses (MBBS) solely within the Non-Resident Indian (NRI) seat quotas, thereby excluding them from general seats reserved for Indian citizens.

This case pivotalizes the intersection of immigration policies, constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, and the doctrine of non-retrogression, raising significant questions about the balance between state sovereignty and individual rights.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court held that while the government retains the sovereign authority to alter policies affecting OCI cardholders, such changes must not retrogress negatively upon rights previously conferred. Specifically, the Court declared that the impugned notification dated March 4, 2021, should apply prospectively, thereby not affecting existing OCI cardholders who had been pursuing medical education based on earlier notifications. The Court emphasized that the alteration of rights for existing cardholders without any substantial reason constitutes a violation of the constitutional principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness.

Consequently, the Court allowed the petitions in part, ensuring that the rights and privileges granted to OCI cardholders under the notifications prior to March 4, 2021, remain intact and are not infringed upon by the new notification.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively analyzed several key judicial precedents to underpin its reasoning:

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248: Established that any classification by the state must be reasonable and not arbitrary, emphasizing that equality under the Constitution is dynamic and must adapt to changing societal needs.
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1: Introduced the doctrine of non-retrogression, asserting that states should not regress on the progressive realization of constitutional rights.
Universal Import Agency v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports [(1961) 1 SCR 305]: Clarified the interpretation of "things done" in notifications, establishing that legal consequences of prior actions should be preserved even after the introduction of new laws.
State of A.P. v. Khudiram Chakma (1994) Supp (1) SCC 615: Reiterated that classifications by the state must be founded on intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the objective sought.

These precedents collectively guided the Court in examining the legality and constitutionality of the government's action to alter OCI cardholders' rights.

Legal Reasoning

The core legal issue revolved around whether the government's notification violated the constitutional rights of OCI cardholders under Articles 14 (Equality before Law) and 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). The Court applied the following reasoning:

Sovereign Power and Statutory Rights: Recognized the government's authority under Section 7B(1) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, to confer and alter rights of OCI cardholders through notifications.
Doctrine of Non-Retrogression: Emphasized that rights previously conferred cannot be retrogressively curtailed without compelling reasons, aligning with the principles established in Navtej Singh Johar.
Reasonable Classification: Evaluated whether the exclusion of OCI cardholders from general seats was a reasonable classification under Article 14. The Court found that the classification lacked a rational nexus, especially given that OCI cardholders had long-term ties to India and were effectively part of the educational fabric of the country.
Legitimate Expectation: Considered the petitioners' legitimate expectation based on prior notifications, rulings, and their substantial residence and educational investment in India.

Conclusively, the Court determined that the notification's retroactive implications were unconstitutional as they undermined the established rights of OCI cardholders without sufficient justification.

Impact

This judgment has profound implications for the interpretation of OCI cardholders' rights and the state's discretion in modifying such rights:

Protection Against Arbitrary Changes: Reinforces the principle that once rights are conferred through statutory means, they cannot be arbitrarily retracted, safeguarding individuals who have invested in their educational and professional pursuits based on those rights.
Doctrine of Non-Retrogression: Establishes a clear precedent that the state must avoid retrogressive actions that diminish previously granted rights, thereby promoting stability and predictability in administrative actions.
Balanced Sovereignty: While affirming the state's sovereign powers, the judgment delineates boundaries to prevent misuse of such powers in ways that contravene constitutional guarantees.
Enhanced Rights of OCI Cardholders: Potentially broadens the scope of rights for OCI cardholders, ensuring they are not unduly restricted in their educational and professional endeavors within India.

Future policies affecting OCI and similar statuses will need to carefully consider constitutional protections to withstand judicial scrutiny.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Doctrine of Non-Retrogression

The doctrine of non-retrogression, highlighted in this judgment, asserts that the state should not take actions that negatively reverse the progress of rights previously established. It ensures that once rights are granted, especially those that individuals have relied upon for significant life decisions, such as education and career, they cannot be revoked or diminished without just cause.

Legitimate Expectation

Legitimate expectation refers to an individual's belief that certain rights or benefits will continue, based on past practices, explicit promises, or established statutory rights. In this case, OCI cardholders expected their rights to secure admissions into medical courses based on earlier notifications and government assurances.

Intelligible Differentia

This is a key component of the reasonable classification test under Article 14. It requires that the group being treated differently must be distinguished based on a clear and understandable characteristic that is relevant to the objective of the law. The Court found that excluding OCI cardholders from general seats lacked such a clear and rational basis.

Section 7B(1) of the Citizenship Act, 1955

This section empowers the Central Government to confer rights upon OCI cardholders through notifications. It outlines the scope of these rights and provides the legal framework within which changes to these rights can be made.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in ANUSHKA RENGUNTHWAR v. UNION OF INDIA reinforces the constitutional safeguards against arbitrary state actions, particularly in the context of revoking or altering rights granted through statutory provisions. By upholding the principles of non-retrogression and legitimate expectation, the Court ensures that individuals who have built their educational and professional lives based on governmental assurances are protected from sudden policy shifts that undermine their established rights.

Moreover, the judgment delineates the limits of the state's sovereign powers, emphasizing that while the government retains the authority to confer and regulate the rights of OCI cardholders, such actions must align with constitutional mandates of fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness. This case sets a significant precedent for future legal challenges concerning the rights of non-citizens in India and underscores the judiciary's role in maintaining the balance between state policies and individual constitutional rights.