'Money Spinning Machine': SC Dismisses Punjab Govt's Plea To Widen 'NRI' Quota | What Is It All About?

"This is nothing but a money spinning machine," observed a bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra while dismissing the state government's appeal against the verdict of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

What Did Punjab Govt's Plea On 'NRI' Quota Include?

On September 10, the high court had set aside the AAP-led government's August 20 notification that expanded the NRI seat category to include distant relatives of candidates "such as uncles, aunts, grandparents, and cousins" for admissions under the 15 per cent NRI quota to medical and dental courses in state government colleges.

Supreme Court Called NRI Quota 'Fraud'

"We will dismiss all the petitions. This NRI business is nothing but a fraud. We will put an end to all this.... now the so called precedents must give way to primacy of law," the bench said.

The top court said distant relatives of a 'mama, tai, taya,' who are settled abroad, will get admissions ahead of meritorious candidates and this cannot be allowed.

"This is completely a fraud. And this is what we are doing with our education system!...We will affirm the high court judgement. We must stop this NRI quota business now. The judges know what they are dealing with. The high court has dealt with the case threadbare," the CJI said.

"Let us put a lid on this...what is this ward? You just have to say that I am looking after X ... We cannot lend our authority to something which is blatantly illegal."

Terming the high court verdict "absolutely right," the top court said, "Look at the deleterious consequences... the candidates who have three times higher marks will lose admission (in NEET-UG courses)."

Senior advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing for the Punjab government, said other states like Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh also followed the broader interpretation of the term 'NRI quota.'

Moreover, the states have the power to decide as to how 15 per cent NRI quota within the 85 per cent quota for the states has to be granted.

A total of 85 per cent NEET-UG seats in medical colleges are filled up by the states in medical colleges under their jurisdiction, the counsel, who was in favour of the NRI quota, told the bench.

A division bench of the high court had come out with an elaborate judgement setting aside the state government decision to broaden the ambit of NRI quota for admissions in medical colleges in Punjab.

What Did High Court Say While Quashing The Plea?

The high court took note of the submissions that the decision to widen the ambit of NRI quota was taken to divert the seats which would have otherwise come to the general category applicants.

"Imparting education is not an economic activity but a welfare-oriented endeavour as the ultimate aim is to achieve an egalitarian and prosperous society in order to bring about social transformation and upliftment of the nation.

"Doctrine of merit and fairness cannot be sacrificed only because the students falling in the expanded definition of Non-Resident Indian (NRI) possess financial muscle," the high court had said.

"Capitation fee has totally been prohibited. If the admissions in the expanded NRI category to include non-genuine NRIs are permitted; the prohibition made on charge of capitation fee would serve no higher purpose, as the State/private colleges would be at liberty to reap the benefits by amending the provisions according to their whims, which means accepting it by disguising the process," according to the high court.

The expansion of 'NRI' definition through the state government corrigendum is "unjustified for several reasons," the high court said.

"Initially, the 'NRI Quota' was intended to benefit genuine NRIs and their children, allowing them to access education opportunities in India. By broadening the definition to include distant relatives such as uncles, aunts, grandparents, and cousins, the core objective of NRI quota is undermined.

"This widening opens the door for potential misuse, allowing individuals who do not fall within the original intent of the policy to take advantage of these seats, potentially bypassing more deserving candidates," it said.