Allowed¶57

Mukul Pravin Khamayacha v. the State of Karnataka

Education – Admission to professional courses 2025-26 – OCI/PIO candidates

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2025WP/8202/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

OCI cardholder admission Karnataka professional courses; KEA notification Clause 7 Government seats eligibility; OCI/PIO candidates as per Government directions; Anushka Rengunthwar v. Union of India (2023) 11 SCC 209; OCI cardholders born before 04.03.2021 treated as Indian citizens; Articles 141 and 144 binding on KEA; writ of certiorari under Article 226; Karnataka Examinations Authority prospectus amendment direction; EDN-RES writ petition 2025; allowed with no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed with no costs; KEA directed to amend its notification/prospectus from the next year onwards to treat OCI cardholders born before 04.03.2021 on par with Indian citizens for admission to professional courses against Government seats. ¶57

Mukul Pravin Khamayacha Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶57

Issue for consideration

Whether Clause 7 of the KEA notification dated 22.01.2025, under which eligibility of OCI/PIO candidates for Government seats is left to the directions of the Government, is sustainable in view of the Supreme Court's ruling in Anushka Rengunthwar that OCI cardholders born before 04.03.2021 are to be treated as Indian citizens. +1 more

¶37

Court's answer

Once the Supreme Court has decided that OCI cardholders/persons holding OCI cards who were born before 04.03.2021 should be treated as citizens of India for the purpose of admission etc., Clause 7 of the KEA notification, to that extent, is against the judgment of the Supreme Court in Anushka Rengunthwar.

¶56

Ratio / Principle

Respondent No.3 Karnataka Examinations Authority is directed to amend its notification/prospectus for the next year onwards, in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Anushka Rengunthwar, providing that OCI cardholders who were born before 04.03.2021 shall be treated on par with Indian citizens for the purpose of admission in professional courses against the Government seats.

¶56

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Education - Admission to professional courses 2025-26 - OCI/PIO candidates - Clause 7 of KEA notification dated 22.01.2025 (No.ED/KEA/ADMN/CR-02/2025-26) left eligibility of OCI/PIO candidates for Government seats to Government directions - Petitioner, a minor OCI cardholder born on 29.11.2007 who studied in Karnataka throughout (Class-X from Mysuru; +2 PUC from Pre-University Board), challenged Clause 7 in a writ petition under Article 226 - Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment dated 03.02.2023 in W.P.(Civil) No.89/2021, Anushka Rengunthwar v. Union of India, (2023) 11 SCC 209, that OCI cardholders born before the notification dated 04.03.2021 and registered as OCI cardholders are to be treated as Indian citizens, and on the binding character of that law declared under Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution, the Bench (per D K Singh, J.; with Venkatesh Naik T, J.) held that Clause 7, to that extent, is against the Supreme Court's judgment, and directed KEA to amend its notification/prospectus from the next year onwards providing that OCI cardholders born before 04.03.2021 shall be treated on par with Indian citizens for admission to professional courses against Government seats - Writ petition allowed with no costs.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:34729-DB WP No. 8202 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T WRIT PETITION NO.8202 OF 2025 (EDN-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MUKUL PRAVIN KHAMAYACHA MINOR, AGED 17 YEARS S/O. PRAVIN SUKHANAND KHAMAYACHA 102, D WING, SV REGENCY, HINKAL RING ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR 2ND STAGE MYSURU-570 017 REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN PRAVIN SUKHANAND KHAMAYACHA

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI AJOY KUMAR PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION K.R. CIRCLE DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶17

KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY SAMPIGE ROAD, 18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM BENGALURU-560 012

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:34729-DB WP No. 8202 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.

¶22

THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS MAJOR DHYAN CHAND NATIONAL STADIUM INDIA GATE

¶23

NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R-1 AND R-2; SRI N.K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SRI SADANA S. DESAI, CGC FOR R-4)

¶26

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION AT ANNEXURE-C ISSUED THE 3RD RESPONDENT KARNATAKA EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY (KEA) DATED 22-1-2025 AT ANNEXURE-C IN NO.ED/KEA/ADMN/CR-02/2025-26 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO CLAUSE 7 OF THE SAID NOTIFICATION WHICH STATES THAT ELIGIBILITY FOR OCI/PIO CANDIDATES FOR GOVERNMENT SEATS SHALL BE AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT AND ETC.

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶30

and

¶31

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:34729-DB WP No. 8202 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶37

The petitioner is an Overseas Citizen of India(OCI). He holds a card to that effect. The petitioner has been studying in Karnataka throughout and has completed his Class-X Standard examination from Mysuru, Karnataka. The petitioner has also cleared his +2 PUC examination from Pre-University Board. The petitioner is aggrieved by the notification issued by Karnataka Examinations Authority(for short 'KEA') for admission to the Professional Courses in the State of Karnataka for the year 2025-2026. Under Clause 7 of the notification dated 22.01.2025 issued by Karnataka Examinations Authority, it is prescribed that no candidate shall be eligible for admission to Government seats, unless he is citizen of India and satisfies any one of the eligibility condition specified therein. The candidates who have not qualified the eligibility criteria are not liable for admission to professional courses under Government seats through KEA. Eligibility for OCI/PIO candidates for Government seats shall be as per the direction of the Government.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:34729-DB WP No. 8202 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 03.02.2023 passed in W.P.(Civil) No.89/2021 and connected matters in Anushka Rengunthwar and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, (2023) 11 SCC 209 has held that OCI cardholders who were born before notification dated 04.03.2021 issued by the Central Government and who have registered themselves as OCI Cardholders, they should be treated as Indian Citizens before the date of notification dated 04.03.2021. The petitioner was born before 04.03.2021, inasmuch as, his date of birth is dated 29.11.2007 and he has to be treated as Indian citizen and clause 7 of the notification to that extent is against the judgment by the Supreme Court in Anushka Rengunthwar case supra.

¶42

Sri. N.K. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3-KEA does not dispute the fact that the judgment of the Supreme Court is binding on KEA as well as well as on all authorities of the Centre and State as per Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution of India.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:34729-DB WP No. 8202 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution of India read

¶47

thus:-

¶48

141. Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts.- The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.

¶49

144. Civil and judicial authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court.- All authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court.

¶50

We have taken note of the submissions advanced on behalf of Sri. Sudev Hegde, learned Addl. Government Advocate, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. He submits that the Government has framed the rules in tune of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Anushka Rengunthwar case supra. He further submits rules have however, not yet been notified.

¶51

Once the Supreme Court has decided the issue that the OCI cardholders/persons having OCI card and who were

¶52

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:34729-DB WP No. 8202 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

born before 04.03.2021 should be treated as Citizens of

¶56

India for the purpose of admission etc., clause 7 of the notification to that extent is against the judgment of the Supreme Court. Therefore, we direct the respondent No.3-Karnataka Examinations Authority to amend its notification/prospectus for the next year onwards in the light of the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Anushka Rengunthwar case supra, providing that the OCI cardholders who were born before 04.03.2021 shall be treated on par with the Indian citizens for the purpose of admission in professional courses against the Government seats.

¶57

With the aforesaid directions, we allow this writ petition with no costs.

¶58

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶59

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶60

¶61

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Mukul Pravin Khamayacha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukul Pravin Khamayacha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Telecom Employees Co-Operative Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs C. Akshatha

M/S Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Sameen Banu

Shristi Pandey Vs the State of Karnataka

G Bhaskar Prabhu Vs Karnataka Stae Khadi and Village Industris Board

Shri. T. Narayana Swamy Vs State of Karnataka