PU keeps NRI criteria unchanged: If you've got a cousin in Canada, you're in
2
Chandigarh: Despite the Supreme Court's recent observations on the misuse of NRI quotas in medical colleges in Punjab, Panjab University has retained its existing eligibility criteria for NRI admissions for the 2025-26 academic session.
The latest guidelines, suggest that the definition of who qualifies as an NRI continues to be broad, leaving room for interpretation and, critics argue, manipulation.
As per the university's norms, candidates are eligible under the NRI category if a parent, sibling, grandparent, legal guardian, or first cousin has been residing abroad for more than one year. No proof of foreign citizenship or permanent residency is required.
Basic documentation such as tax returns or employment certificates from overseas, or even an affidavit from a relative, is sufficient to establish eligibility.
In effect, the policy allows applicants with relatively distant family connections abroad to seek admission through the NRI channel, often at significantly higher tuition fee, but with relaxed academic thresholds, especially in professional courses.
As per this year's guidelines, 10 percent of seats over and above the sanctioned strength is reserved for NRI candidates. Along with NRIs, the wards of NRIs are also included in this. First priority is to be given to NRIs over wards of NRIs.
Educationists have pointed out that the broad definition of "relative" enables candidates with weak academic records but strong foreign ties to secure seats meant for NRIs.
PU had sought legal opinion on the matter in Sep 2024 after the Supreme Court's order regarding NRI admissions in Punjab medical colleges. Authorities said the university was advised that the order applied specifically to medical colleges in Punjab, not to PU. Based on this interpretation, the university has continued with a similar NRI admission policy for the 2025–26 session.
As it stands, the presence of a family member abroad, however loosely defined, continues to be enough for a student to enter through a separate admission track.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
38 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court issues notice to Centre, Madhya Pradesh on plea against 237 ‘illegal' environmental clearances by SEIAA member-secretary
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (July 23, 2025) decided to hear a petition seeking a declaration that 237 environmental clearances granted by the member-secretary of the Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) are illegal and in systemic violation of the environmental laws. A three-judge Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai issued notice to the Union Government, the State, the SEIAA Chairman, and the member-secretary, Principal Secretary of the State Environment Department. The petitioner, Vijay Kumar Das, a Hindi newspaper publisher, has arraigned the Central Bureau of Investigation too as a respondent. The notices are returnable in two weeks. Mr. Das, represented by senior advocate Vivek Tankha and advocate Sumeer Sodhi, said the clearances were given unilaterally, without convening the mandatory SEIAA meetings and in breach of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986; and the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006. The petition alleged that the clearances were the result of a deliberate strategy to bypass the collective decision-making process mandated by the law, and exploited the 'deemed approval' provisions after letting statutory periods lapse. It said that there was no properly constituted SEIAA or SEAC (State Expert Appraisal Committee) between June 11, 2024, to January 6, 2025. A new SEIAA was constituted on January 7 this year. The violations, it was alleged, began from May 23 this year when the first environmental clearance was issued unilaterally by the member-secretary without any SEIAA meeting. The petition said multiple clearances were issued in just one day, May 24, demonstrating the premeditated nature of the alleged violations. 'Despite the chairman of SEIAA writing almost 48 representations between April-June 2025 to prevent these illegal actions, addressed to various authorities including the Member Secretary, Principal Secretary, Chief Secretary, and Union of India, the systematic violations continued unabated. The authorities have turned a blind eye to these representations, which demonstrates not merely administrative negligence but willfull and deliberate facilitation of environmental crimes at the highest levels of the State government,' the petition said. It said the case was a 'classic example' of Secretaries and senior officials abusing their positions for ulterior motives, including personal gains, by facilitating illegal environmental clearances for mining lobbies and industrial interests. 'The member-secretary acted in active collusion with the principal secretary, department of environment, and other public officials, orchestrating a prolonged non-convening of SEIAA meetings with the calculated intention of allowing the statutory period for appraisal to lapse,' the petition argued.
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
30 bulldozers to raze forest overnight? Top court raps Telangana over tree felling
The Supreme Court expressed sharp disapproval over the use of bulldozers to clear forest land in Kancha Gachibowli, Telangana, stating that such overnight operations cannot be justified as sustainable development. Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai, who is heading the bench hearing the suo motu case, remarked during the proceedings that while he supported the cause of sustainable development, the nature and speed of deforestation in this case were am myself an advocate for sustainable development but that does not mean that overnight you should employ 30 bulldozers and clear all the jungle,' the Chief Justice said during the matter relates to the clearing of approximately 400 acres of green cover in the Kancha Gachibowli forest area by the Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC) for the development of information technology infrastructure. The rapid felling of trees, reportedly over a long weekend, had led to widespread public concern and judicial intervention. Senior Advocate K Parameshwar, appointed as the amicus curiae in the matter, informed the Court that certain private intervenors intended to respond to the state government's affidavit. The bench agreed to grant time for these responses and re-listed the matter for detailed hearing on August an earlier hearing, the Supreme Court had strongly criticised the actions of the state authorities, warning them of contempt proceedings and even suggesting that erring officials could be held in temporary prisons constructed at the site if they failed to comply with Court orders. The Court had directed that restoring the status quo at the site was of utmost priority and had asked the State Wildlife Warden to take immediate steps to protect wildlife impacted by the also granted the state government time to respond to the Central Empowered Committee's spot inspection report and ordered the submission of an action plan to restore the forest to its previous background of the case traces back to a government order issued in 2024 by TSIIC, which sought to alienate forest land for IT development. Although TSIIC claimed to have acquired the land in 2012, the tree-felling gained momentum recently, prompting the filing of multiple public interest litigations before the Telangana High Court. Petitioners argued that the government's actions were in blatant disregard of Supreme Court rulings in TN Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, which had directed all states to identify forests and forest-like areas as per the dictionary definition of 'forest'.advertisementThe petitioners further contended that the state had not conducted any environmental assessment as required under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006, and alleged that the land was being auctioned off for the construction of an IT park without due defence, the Telangana government maintained that the land in question was already classified as industrial and dismissed the petitioners' claims as being based merely on Google Earth April 2, the Telangana High Court had initially stayed the felling of trees until April 3, with the matter being adjourned to April 24 in view of the Supreme Court's intervention. The top court is now set to hear the matter in detail on August 13.- Ends IN THIS STORY#Telangana
Mint
2 hours ago
- Mint
Burnt cash discovery row: Govt weighs probe into allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma
The Central government is working to constitute a committee to probe allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma in the alleged burnt cash recovery case, government sources said on Wednesday, July 23. Earlier, sources had indicated that the proposed committee may include a Supreme Court judge, a Chief Justice from a High Court, and a noted jurist. The talks on formation of a committee came after Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju mentioned that over 100 MPs have signed calling for the impeachment process against Justice Varma. "The signature (collection) is underway, and it has crossed 100 already," Kiren Rijiju said. When asked if the issue of Justice Yashwant Varma and cash recovery would also be taken up in the monsoon session, Kiren Rijiju said, "In the Justice Varma case, the process will be undertaken together by all parties. This is not the move by the government alone." 'I can't comment on any business in terms of priority until and unless the matter is passed by the BAC [Business Advisory Committee] with the approval of the chair. It is difficult to make an announcement outside,' he added. On Monday, Members of Parliament submitted a memorandum to the Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla to remove High Court Justice Yashwant Varma in connection with the cash discovery row. According to the reports, as many as 145 Lok Sabha members – including MPs Anurag Singh Thakur, Ravi Shankar Prasad, Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi, Rajiv Pratap Rudy, PP Chaudhary, Supriya Sule, KC Venugopal – have signed the impeachment motion against Justice Varma under Articles 124, 217, and 218 of the Constitution. MPs from various parties, including Congress, TDP, JDU, JDS, Jan Sena Party, AGP, SS (Shinde), LJSP, SKP, CPM, etc., signed the memorandum. The alleged cash discovery happened on the night of Holi, March 14, when a fire broke out in the storeroom of Yashwant Varma's Lutyens' Delhi residence around 11.35 pm. Several pictures of the burnt cash surfaced on social media. In his response, Justice Varma 'unequivocally' denied the allegations against him, terming them as 'totally preposterous'. 'I state unequivocally that no cash was ever placed in that storeroom either by me or any of my family members and strongly denounce the suggestion that the alleged cash belonged to us. The very idea or suggestion that this cash was kept or stored by us is totally preposterous,' Justice Varma said. He said, 'The suggestion that one would store cash in an open, freely accessible and commonly used storeroom near the staff quarters or in an outhouse verges on the incredible and incredulous.'
