NRI Quota In NEET-UG Counselling Is Unreserved; Candidates Cannot Combine It With OBC Reservation: Karnataka High Court
The Court observed that the applicable Information Bulletin allows NRI candidates to view seats reserved for the NRI category and General seats, but permits each candidate to opt for only one type of reservation.
The Karnataka High Court has held that the 15% Non-Resident Indian quota in NEET-UG counselling is a separate, unreserved category and cannot be combined with reservation for Other Backward Classes.
The Court rejected a petition by an OBC candidate seeking to participate under an “NRI-OBC” category, after also finding that she had not secured the qualifying marks required under the NRI quota.
The Court was hearing a writ petition seeking a declaration that the candidate’s OBC non-creamy layer status remained available to her despite applying as an NRI-sponsored candidate and a direction permitting her to participate in the remaining NEET-UG counselling rounds under that combined status.
A Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna and Justice Hema Kulkarni observed: “The NRI quota is a separate quota and 15% of the seats are reserved for NRIs. The nuances of such reservation are found in the brochure that is notified in terms of law, which clearly indicates that NRI can only be under the unreserved category.”
“With this being the case, the petitioner is wanting us to interpret that the reservation of either SC/ST/OBC or otherwise should be straight away made applicable even to the NRI, so that the petitioner could get in under the NRI-OBC category. This submission is sans countenance in the light of the petitioner not only not crossing the threshold bar of the marks required to be obtained under the NRI quota, which is unreserved, but also the petitioner cannot now want us to interpret that the NRI quota should now be addressed with a reservation for her to get into the counseling.”
Advocate Deepak C. Maganur appeared for the petitioner; Advocates Mrutyunjay S. Hallikeri appeared for the respondents.
Background
The petitioner had applied for admission to undergraduate medical courses through NEET-UG counselling. She claimed OBC non-creamy layer status under the State’s 2A category and also sought consideration under the NRI-sponsored quota based on sponsorship from her paternal aunt.
The petitioner sought a declaration that her OBC status, being based on birth and statutory certification, remained available for All India and State quota seats notwithstanding her application under the NRI-sponsored category.
She also sought permission to participate in the remaining counselling rounds under the NRI-sponsored category and challenged the application of a Medical Counselling Committee notice to her.
The petitioner contended that placing her in the General category merely because she opted for the NRI quota improperly deprived her of OBC reservation. The Union authorities responded that she had secured 48.33% and did not meet the basic qualifying requirement for consideration under the NRI quota.
Court’s Observations
The Court recorded that the petition was founded on the contention that reservation for OBC or other social categories should remain available within the NRI quota.
The Bench observed: “The petition is preferred on the score that, under the NRI quota, there should be reservation either to the OBC category or to any other category, and the petitioner cannot be brought under the General category. Therefore, if the petitioner is not allowed to avail reservation under the OBC category, it would deny the petitioner a seat. The said submission is noted only to be rejected.”
The Court held that the NRI quota constituted a separate reservation of 15% of seats and that the notified admission brochure treated it as an unreserved category. The Bench added that social-category reservation could not be combined with the NRI quota to create an “NRI-OBC” category.
The Court referred to Question 36 of the NEET-UG (MBBS/BDS/B.Sc. Nursing) Counselling 2026 Information Bulletin and Counselling Scheme.
The Bench reproduced the governing clarification: “NRI/OCI/PIO candidates will be shown seats reserved for NRI category and General Seats of All India Quota and Seats of Deemed Universities. One Candidate can only opt for one type of reservation.”
The Court stated that the counselling scheme's express terms prevented a candidate from claiming the benefits of both the NRI quota and OBC reservation simultaneously.
The Court further found that the petitioner had not crossed the threshold marks required for consideration under the NRI quota. The Bench added that the candidate could not overcome that deficiency by asking the Court to introduce social-category reservation within the NRI quota.
The Court consequently declined to interpret the counselling framework as creating an NRI-OBC category that was absent from the notified scheme.
Conclusion
The High Court held that the NRI quota was separate and unreserved and that a candidate could opt for only one form of reservation under the applicable counselling scheme.
Finding no merit in the candidate’s request to combine NRI and OBC reservation or to participate under an NRI-OBC category, the Court rejected the writ petition.
Cause Title: Juhi v. Union of India & Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC-D:14973-DB)
Appearances
Petitioner: Advocate Deepak C. Maganur
Respondents: Advocate Mrutyunjay S. Hallikeri; Advocate Anoop Deshpande; Advocate Surabhi Kulkarni