Calcutta High Court Dismisses Pleas Seeking Action Over Alleged Misuse Of NRI Quota For Admission To Private Medical Colleges

Update: 2024-05-09 08:51 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed pleas seeking the Court's intervention over the issue of NRI quota in medical admissions and compliance with the Supreme Court's guidelines on the same.In dismissing the plea, a division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya noted that the pleas were from 2019, and that since then there were various changes to the...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed pleas seeking the Court's intervention over the issue of NRI quota in medical admissions and compliance with the Supreme Court's guidelines on the same.

In dismissing the plea, a division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya noted that the pleas were from 2019, and that since then there were various changes to the admission process making it more stringent to take admission under the NRI quota. It also observed that the students who had been admitted in that year would have all completed their course and as such the plea challenging their admissions would be rendered academic.

I am aware of the issue. Earlier anyone could say they were a relative of an NRI who was sponsoring their fees. Admission would be given, along with 5 times the fee, and there would be no problem. Present guidelines say that only blood relatives can sponsor a candidate, so it has become more stringent, the Court said.

Counsel for one of the petitioners submitted that medical admissions were being sold through the NRI quota at a premium rate to non-NRI candidates.

Counsel for the National Medical Commission (NMC) also submitted that the pleas were from 2019, and from 2020, the University was no longer the counselling authority but just the admission authority. Hence it was contended that the plea would be infructious.

In noting that the guidelines had changed since the pleas had been filed and that the petitioner who had initiated one of the PILs had since passed away, the Court dismissed the plea.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 115

Case: Rama Prasad Sarkar v State of West Bengal & Ors

Case No: WPA(P)/17019/2019

Similar News