ORDER : Petitioners who happen to be Overseas Citizens of India Cardholders having been so registered under Section 7A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, (hereafter “the 1955 Act”) regardless of varying texts of their prayers in the pleadings are invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court inter alia assailing the vires of Section 2(1)(n) of the Karnataka Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Determination of Fee) Act, 2006 (hereafter “2006 Act”) and Rule 5 of the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Government Seats in Professional Educational Institutions Rules, 2006 (hereafter “2006 Rules”), to the extent they, by their collective effect, deny to them the right to join professional courses of education by staking claim for Government Seats as inclusively defined under Rule 2(l) of the said Rules and other seats, as well. 2. Impugned Section 2(1)(n) of 2006 Act includes the OCI Cardholders within the definition of “Non-resident Indian” as amended in 2017 and thus, by implication, their educational rights are made co-terminus with those of NRIs; impugned Rule 5 of 2006 Rules goes a step further by prescribing Indian citizenship as a sine qua non to avail the Government Seats, and consequently, the OCI Cardholders have been absolutely debarred from claiming those Seats in professional courses, for the academic year 2019-20 regardless of their CET merit/ranking. This is the concrete and cumulative grievance of the Petitioners, put succinctly. 3. After service of notice, the Respondent – State of Karnataka has entered appearance through its learned Addl. Advocate General Sri. A.S. Ponnanna assisted by Additional Government Advocate Smt. Pramodhini Kishan; the Respondent – Karnataka Examinations Authority has entered appearance through its Panel Counsel Sri. N.K. Ramesh; the Union of India has entered appearance through its learned Assistant Solicitor General of India Sri. C. Shashikantha, assisted by CGC Mr. Sharatchandra R. Dodwad, and CGC Mr. Adiyta Singh; Learned CGC Mr. Birdy Ayappa has also appeared for the Central Government in some of these matters. The State Government has filed its Statement of Objections resisting the writ petitions. 4. Learned Senior Advocate Prof. Ravivarma Kumar and Sri. C. Shashikantha, assisted by CGC Mr. Sharatchandra R. Dodwad, and CGC Mr. Adiyta Singh; Learned CGC Mr. Birdy Ayappa has also appeared for the Central Government in some of these matters. The State Government has filed its Statement of Objections resisting the writ petitions. 4. Learned Senior Advocate Prof. Ravivarma Kumar and Sri. Ajoy Kumar Patil leading the arguments for the petitioners, in substance, submitted: (a) The Parliament has enacted the Citizenship Act, 1955, under Article 246(1) r/w. Article 11 pursuant to Entry-17 of List-I; Section 7A as amended, empowers the Central Government to register the Persons of Indian Origin as the “Overseas Citizens of India Cardholders”; Section 7B further empowers it to confer on them certain rights, which are not excluded under sub-Section 2 thereof ; the Central Government accordingly had issued a Notification dated 11.04.2005 entitling the OCI Cardholders to certain educational ‘facilities’ whose gamut has been enhanced by another Notification dated 06.01.2009; these Notifications are in the nature of Delegated Legislations and therefore constitute a Law made by the Centre. (b) Several States have enacted amendments to their respective Acts and Rules to facilitate OCI Cardholders exercising these educational rights, whereas, the State of Karnataka is treading the path in an opposite direction, to their detriment; all the Petitioners are born and residing in India and have been prosecuting their studies in the State of Karnataka for the past more than 10 years or so; having successfully completed PUC/Class 12, they now intend to join various professional courses in the State by availing Government Seats & other seats, on comparative merits/ranking, on par with Citizens. (c) Section 2(1)(n) of 2006 Act as amended by Karnataka Act 22 of 2017 equates the OCI Cardholders to Non-resident Indians by definition and consequently their educational rights are unauthorisedly made co-terminus with those of NRIs, so far as their claim for the Government Seats is concerned, when such a parity is already removed by the Central Government Notification, way back in the year 2009 itself. (d) Rule 5 of 2006 Rules goes a step further and absolutely debars the OCI Cardholders from entering the fray by prescribing Indian Citizenship as a precondition for claiming the Government Seats; all this being repugnant to the delegated legislation vide Central Government Notifications of 2005 & 2009 issued under Section 7B of the 1955 Act, is unconstitutional. (d) Rule 5 of 2006 Rules goes a step further and absolutely debars the OCI Cardholders from entering the fray by prescribing Indian Citizenship as a precondition for claiming the Government Seats; all this being repugnant to the delegated legislation vide Central Government Notifications of 2005 & 2009 issued under Section 7B of the 1955 Act, is unconstitutional. (e) Matter pertaining to foreigners falls within the exclusive domain of Parliament vide Article 246, Entry-17 of List-I of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution of India; even otherwise also matters pertaining to education being concurrently with the Centre by virtue of Entry-25 in List- III, the law made by the Parliament and its delegate namely the Central Government vide Notifications dated 2005 & 2009 will have primacy over the State law i.e. Section 2(1)(n) of 2006 Act and Rule 5 of 2006 Rules; therefore to that extent either they should be struck down as being unconstitutional on the Doctrine of Occupied Field/Repugnancy, or held not enforceable against the Petitioners. (f) That a Division Bench of this Court after considering the matter at length had granted relief to the OCI Cardholders for the preceding academic years although the matter went to the Apex Court where cases were withdrawn; however, the reasoning part of the decision throws a lot of light on the issues being debated here; in fact the questions raised here having been substantially answered in the said decision are no longer res integra. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Ponnanna assisted by Smt. Pramodini Kishan, AGA and learned Assistant Solicitor General of India Sri. C. Shashikantha ably assisted by Sri. Sharaschandra Dodwad and Sri. Aditya Singh, contended: (a) That the OCI Cardholders are not Citizens of India; all they are foreigners; the operative concept under the 1955 Act is not “Overseas Citizens of India” as it was earlier by nomenclature, but “Overseas Citizens of India Cardholders” after Parliamentary Amendment; Petitioners confuse one with the other, merely because both the expressions are employed in Sections 7A, 7B & 7C of this Act; thus the very foundation of their case is wrongly laid and Petitioners are not entitle to any relief at the hands of this Court. (b) That the Central Government has issued the aforesaid 2005 and 2009 Notifications inter alia conferring certain educational rights on the OCI Cardholders is true; there is no conflict between these Notifications on the one hand and the impugned provisions of State law on the other; the contention that, Section 2(1)(n) of 2006 Act and Rule 5 of 2006 Rules are unconstitutional is incorrect inasmuch as the Central Government Notifications and the impugned provisions can coexist and co-operate without bruising each others shoulders. (c) That the educational rights of the OCI Cardholders who happen to be foreigners are not on par with those of NRIs who are indisputably Citizens of India; the argument of repugnance between Central Law and the State Law is unfounded since the 2009 Notification itself in so many words makes the rights of the OCI Cardholders subject to local laws. Since ours is a constitutionally ordained Federal Structure, a State cannot be expected to enact laws in the way other States averedly do or have done, depending upon their varying local requirement. (d) The contention that the Division Bench of this Court by a well considered decision arguably had held in favour of OCI Cardholders now pales into insignificance after withdrawal of their cases, at the Apex Court level, the matter having been left to be decided afresh; the Apex Court at the interim stage of the SLP had agreed with the contention of learned Attorney General for India that the educational rights of OCI Cardholders cannot be better than that of NRIs (citizens) claiming admission under the NRI Quota. 6. The learned counsel appearing on either side have argued the matter extensively on several dates. Mr. C. Shashikantha, learned ASG, on request, having accepted notice for the respondent-Union of India in all connected matters that have not been represented by any specific Central Govt. Counsel, has made his submissions on the basis of the Clarificatory letter issued by the Central Government. I have perused the Petition Papers, Statement of Objections & Written Submissions. I have not specifically mentioned in the body of this Judgment about the Rulings cited at the Bar as to, the scheme of constitutional distribution of Legislative Powers inasmuch as the propositions in support of which they were cited are too well settled by now, the non invocability of some of them, notwithstanding. 7. I have not specifically mentioned in the body of this Judgment about the Rulings cited at the Bar as to, the scheme of constitutional distribution of Legislative Powers inasmuch as the propositions in support of which they were cited are too well settled by now, the non invocability of some of them, notwithstanding. 7. The 1955 Act is enacted by the Parliament pursuant to Article 11 r/w. 246(1) & Entry-17 of List-I (Central List) of 7th Schedule to the Constitution of India; Entry-17 comprises “Citizenship, naturalization and aliens”; all matters regardless of their nomenclature and description, relating to foreigners, fall under the word “aliens”; the new Chapter “OVERSEAS CITIZENSHIP” comprising Sections 7A, 7B, 7C and 7D has been incorporated by the Parliamentary amendments in series; Sections 7A and 7B with which we are concerned, in the present form have been introduced to this Chapter by Act 1 of 2015 w.e.f. 06.01.2015. 8. Sub-section 1 of Section 7B on the text of which these cases are structured, reads as under: “7B. Conferment of rights on Overseas Citizen of India Cardholder.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, an Overseas Citizen of India Cardholder shall be entitled to such rights, other than the rights specified under sub-section (2), as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf.” Sub-section 1 which is reproduced above begins with a non obstante clause by employing the term “Notwithstanding”; sub-section 2 enlists the rights that cannot be conferred on the Overseas Citizens of India Cardholders, and this is not much relevant to us. The rights excluded under this sub-section are exhaustively enumerated and therefore, all other rights do avail for conferment on the OCI Cardholders by the delegate of the Parliament namely the Central Government. 9. The rights excluded under this sub-section are exhaustively enumerated and therefore, all other rights do avail for conferment on the OCI Cardholders by the delegate of the Parliament namely the Central Government. 9. The two Central Government Notifications that constitute the jugular vein of these cases are profitably reproduced verbatim hereunder, for ease of reference: (i) “NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 11th April, 2005 S.O. 542(E) – In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 7B of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (57 of 1955) the Central Government hereby specifies the following rights to which the persons registered as Overseas Citizens of India under Section 7A of the said Act shall be entitled, namely:- (a) grant of multiple entry lifelong visa for visiting India for any purpose; (b) exemption from registration with Foreign Regional Registration Officer or Foreign Registration Officer for any length of stay in India; and (c) parity with Non-resident Indians in respect of all facilities available to them in economic, financial and educational fields except in matter relating to the acquisition of agricultural or plantation properties” (ii) “MINISTRY OF OVERSEAS INDIAN AFFAIRS NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 5th January, 2009 S.O.36(E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 7B of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (57 of 1955), and in continuation of the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs number S.O.542(E), dated the 11th April, 2005 and in the Ministry of Overseas Affairs S.O.12(E), dated the 6th January, 2007, the Central Government hereby specifies the following rights to which the persons registered as the overseas citizen of India under Section 7A of the said Act, shall be entitled, namely:- (a) parity with non-resident Indian in respect of- (i) entry fees to be charged for visiting the national monuments, historical sites and museums in India; (ii) pursuing the following professions in India, in pursuance of the provisions contained in the relevant Acts, namely:- (i) doctors, dentists, nurses and pharmacists; (ii) advocates; (iii) architects; (iv) chartered accountants; (b) to appear for the All India Pre-Medical Test or such other tests to make them eligible for admission in pursuance of the provisions contained in the relevant Acts.” 10. WHETHER DEFINITION OF NON-RESIDENT INDIAN U/s 2(1)(n) OF 2006 ACT IS REPUGNANT TO 2009 NOTIFICATION OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT? WHETHER DEFINITION OF NON-RESIDENT INDIAN U/s 2(1)(n) OF 2006 ACT IS REPUGNANT TO 2009 NOTIFICATION OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT? (a) The impugned Section 2(1)(n) of 2006 Act which defines “Non-resident Indian” as amended by Karnataka Act No.22 of 2017 w.e.f. 06.04.2017 reads as under: “(n) “Non-resident Indian” means a candidate born to a parent of Indian origin and residing outside the country and who has passed the qualifying equivalent examination outside India and includes persons of Indian origin and overseas citizen of India” Thus, apparently the OCI Cardholders are placed on par with the Non-resident Indians under the amended definition; the expressions “persons of Indian origin” and “Overseas Citizens of India” occuring in this definition, as rightly concurred by the Bar, are construed as referring to the “Overseas Citizens of India Cardholders” in view of later Parliamentary amendments to the 1955 Act. (b) Admittedly, 2006 Act is enacted by the Karnataka State Legislature under Article 246(2) r/w. Entry-25 of List-III (Concurrent List) of 7th Schedule to the Constitution. By virtue of above inclusive definition of Non-resident Indian, the OCI Cardholders have been equated with the NRI students and consequently their educational rights are made co-terminus with those of NRIs; this was perfectly alright with the Central Government Notification dated 11.04.2005 since it conspicuously had placed the OCI Cardholders on par with the NRIs so far as their educational “facilities” were concerned and that there was no conflict between the two, then. (c) The educational rights of OCI Cardholders, however, have been progressively widened under paragraph (b) of the aforesaid Central Government Notification dated 06.01.2009 whereunder the parity that existed between them and the NRIs earlier under 2005 Notification, has been specifically removed, yielding some more rights to them, as a matter of policy; thus, the definition of Non-resident Indian u/S. 2(d) to the extent it ropes in, the OCI Cardholders and places them on par with the NRIs being over-inclusive militates against the additional conferment of educational rights made under this Notification; thus, there is noticeable repugnance between the operational definition of Non-resident Indian and the 2009 Notification guaranteeing educational rights to the OCI Cardholders. (d) The above view is further strengthened by the text of paragraph (a) in the 2009 Notification which still retains parity with Non-resident Indians inter alia in respect of professional rights of OCI Cardholders whereas such a parity which was brought in by 2005 Notification stands removed when it comes to their educational rights conferred under its paragraph (b); a contra construction as suggested by AAG Mr. Ponnanna and seconded by ASG Mr. Shashikantha amounts to reading the constraints in paragraph (a) of the said Notification into its paragraph (b) which by their very text and context are mutually exclusive; therefore, this contention does not merit acceptance. 11. WHETHER IMPUGNED SECTION 2(1)(n) OF 2006 ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE OF LACK OF LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE OF THE STATE ? (a) Section 7B(1) of 1955 Act deals with rights of the OCI Cardholders who are not the citizens of this country; these rights may be educational, occupational, professional, proprietary or the like subject to the exclusion by Sub-Section 2 thereof. It is a settled principle of constitutional jurisprudence that the legislative power being plenary in nature, the constitutional provisions yielding such power should be given a very wide interpretation; it also firmly settled that, Entries in the Legislative Lists in 7th Schedule to the Constitution are not sources of the legislative power but are merely topics or fields of Legislation and therefore, they must receive a liberal construction inspired by a broad and generous spirit and not in a narrow pedantic sense, as rightly contended by Prof. Ravivarma Kumar. (b) The Apex Court in a catena of decisions has held that the expression “with respect to” in employed in Article 246 conceives in, the doctrine of “pith and substance” in the understanding of the exertion of the legislative power, and that wherever the question of legislative competence crops up, the test is whether the legislation, looked at as a whole, is substantial and not mere a remote connection with the entry, the matter may well be taken to be legislation on the topic; keeping this in mind, the nature and subject matter of Sections 7A & 7B of the 1955 Act, the Notifications of 2005 & 2009, the impugned Section 2(1)(n) of 2006 Act and Rule 5 of 2006 Rules need to be analyzed and understood. (c) The Central Government being the delegate of the Parliament u/S. 7B(1) of 1955 Act, has promulgated the Delegated Legislation vide Notifications of 2005 & 2009 conferring inter alia certain educational rights on the OCI Cardholders; this section and the said Notifications inter alia deal with the foreigners (i.e. OCI Cardholders) and their educational rights, which in substance relate to “aliens” as mentioned in Entry-17 of List-I, going by the doctrine of Pith and Substance; merely because the educational rights of foreigners are involved, one cannot hastily jump to the conclusion that their subject matter relates to “education” in Entry-25 of List-III inasmuch as the bundle of rights bestowed upon the foreigners as a package constitutes the genus and their educational rights separated from such bundle constitute the species; thus, the subject matter of legislation lies exclusively within the domain of the Centre. (d) The above being the position, the State Legislature lacked competence to enact Karnataka Act No.22 of 2017 whereby the words “and includes persons of Indian origin and overseas citizen of India” came to be introduced to the definition of “Non-resident Indian” u/S. 2(1)(n) of 2006 Act; may be that, the Draftsman of this amendment was under an impression that the subject matter relates to “education” under Entry-25 of List-III when the matter essentially and in substance relates to “aliens” (foreigners) in Entry-17 of List-I. The reasons why the matters relating to foreigners are constitutionally entrusted to the Centre are not far to seek. (e) In the alternative, even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that, the subject Notifications of 2005 & 2009 do relate to Entry-25 of List-III, still the State could not have enacted 2017 amendment to include OCI Cardholders in the definition of “Non-resident Indian” under the impugned Section 2(1)(n) of 2006 Act, since the field was already occupied by the Central Law (Central Government Notification of 2009) way back in 2009 itself because of Article 254(1) of the Constitution which enacts the doctrine of occupied field whereunder the primacy is bestowed on the Central Law over the State Law, on a demonstrable conflict between them, as in the case here. 12. WHETHER RULE 5 OF 2006 RULES PRESCRIBING CITIZENSHIP AS A PRE-CONDITION FOR AVAILING GOVERNMENT SEATS, IS UNENFORCEABLE AGAINST OCI CARDHOLDERS ? 12. WHETHER RULE 5 OF 2006 RULES PRESCRIBING CITIZENSHIP AS A PRE-CONDITION FOR AVAILING GOVERNMENT SEATS, IS UNENFORCEABLE AGAINST OCI CARDHOLDERS ? (a) The 2006 Rules are apparently promulgated under Section 14 of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984 (hereafter called “the 1984 Act”); this Act like the 2006 Act above, too has been enacted by the State Legislature under Entry-25 of Concurrent List; these Rules are deemed to have been made under the provisions of 2006 Act by virtue of a deeming clause enacted in its Section 24, which reads as under: “24. Transitory provisions: Any rule, notification or appointment, made or issued under the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984 (Karnataka Act 37 of 1984) providing for or relating to any of the matters for the furtherance of which this Act is enacted, before the commencement of this Act and in force on the date of commencement of this Act to the extent they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, shall continue to be in force and effective as if they are made or issued or appointed under the corresponding provisions of this Act unless and until superseded by anything done or any action taken or any rule, notification or appointment made under this Act.” Apparently, there is no repugnancy between the 2006 Rules promulgated under 1984 Act and the provisions of 2006 Act; therefore, it can be safely assumed that these Rules are validly promulgated by the State Government under 2006 Act, the contra contention having not been substantiated by the Petitioners’ side. The argument of Prof. Ravivarma Kumar that the 2006 Rules could not have been promulgated by the State Government inasmuch as they transcend the 1984 Act is not acceptable going by the text, scope and object of the said Act, as rightly analyzed by Mr. Ponnanna. (b) The impugned part of Rule 5 of 2006 Rules reads as under: “5. The argument of Prof. Ravivarma Kumar that the 2006 Rules could not have been promulgated by the State Government inasmuch as they transcend the 1984 Act is not acceptable going by the text, scope and object of the said Act, as rightly analyzed by Mr. Ponnanna. (b) The impugned part of Rule 5 of 2006 Rules reads as under: “5. Eligibility for Government Seats- No candidate shall be eligible for admission to Government Seats unless he is a citizen of India…….” (Remaining part of the definition is not relevant for our consideration) Obviously, the text of this Rule makes Indian Citizenship a sine qua non for any student to lay a claim for Government Seats which by definition as given under Rule 2(1)(l) of 2006 Rules means all the seats in the Government colleges, University colleges, 95% of the seats in aided courses in private aided Engineering Colleges and 80% of the seats in private aided Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy Colleges, and all other seats as may be notified by the State Government; thus, the residue of the seats is too small to be mentioned, as rightly stated by the learned counsel Mr. Ajoy Kumar Patil and confining the OCI Cardholders to them would be defeative of the grant made under the subject Notifications of 2005 & 2009 under Section 7B(1) of the 1955 Act. Ajoy Kumar Patil and confining the OCI Cardholders to them would be defeative of the grant made under the subject Notifications of 2005 & 2009 under Section 7B(1) of the 1955 Act. (c) Rule 5 to the extent it prescribes citizenship as a precondition for availing admission to Government Seats cannot be enforced against the OCI Cardholders because such prescription denies the educational rights that are conferred on them by the 2009 Notification issued by the Delegate of the Parliament u/s. 7B of 1955 Act; strangely, even whatever lesser Educational Rights that are otherwise available under 2005 Notification which prescribed the parity between them and the NRIs also stand denuded by virtue of this Rule; thus, there is a rank repugnancy between the Central Law i.e. the Notifications of 2005 & 2009 and the State Law i.e., Rule 5; therefore, this Rule cannot be enforced against the OCI Cardholders, although the issue as to its enforceability against other foreigners, not being the subject matter of these Writ Petitions, is left open; it is noteworthy that Rule 5 cannot be held unconstitutional so far as other foreigners since the Central Law occupies the field only qua the OCI Cardholders, going by the assumption that both the Central Law and the State Law are relatable to Entry-25 of List-III. (d) There is yet another aspect of relevance; under the constitutional scheme of distribution of legislative powers, it is the Parliament in whom is vested all residuary legislative competence, which fact along with other prompted the Constitutional Law jurist Prof. K.C. Wheare to brand our Constitution as "quasi-federal"; it is true that “education” is in the Concurrent List and “aliens” is in the Central List; if the matter was simply “education” we would have had no difficulty; similarly, if the matter was plainly “aliens” again we would have encountered no difficulty; but the matter here is bit complex, in the sense it combines “aliens” & “education”; even if it is assumed that, this matter does not fall within any of the Entries in any Lists, then it is the Parliament which has exclusive Legislative competence by virtue of Article 248 may be r/w Entry-97 of the List-I, as rightly contended by Prof. Ravivarma Kumar; therefore, otherwise also the State could not have enacted the impugned provisions of law to the extent they affected the OCI Cardholders, if not all ‘foreigners’. 13. Ravivarma Kumar; therefore, otherwise also the State could not have enacted the impugned provisions of law to the extent they affected the OCI Cardholders, if not all ‘foreigners’. 13. WHETHER OCI CARDHOLDERS ARE INDIAN CITIZENS ? (a) Parliament has enacted the Citizenship Act, 1955 by virtue of Article 246(1) r/w. Article 11 and Entry-17 of List-I of 7th Schedule to the Constitution, as already stated above. Section 7B and other kindred provisions are added to this Act by way of amendment, empowering the Central Government to make Delegated Legislation conferring certain rights on the foreigners of Indian origin; accordingly, by the Notification of 2005 certain facilities were extended to them, and by subsequent Notification of 2009, the gamut/extent of the same has been widened. However, the OCI Cardholders by that alone do not become Indian citizens, although the Act provides for applying for the grant of citizenship in certain circumstances. (b) Merely because the expressions “Overseas Citizens of India” and “Overseas Citizens of India Cardholders” are employed in certain provisions of 1955 Act, or in some State Enactments, one cannot readily conclude that these provisions or the Notifications deal with the subject matter of “citizenship”; obviously they do not; as already explained above, both the subject Notifications of 2005 & 2009 relate to "aliens" in Entry-17 of List-I; the word “foreigner” is defined under Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 to mean “a person who is not a citizen of India”; all “Overseas Citizens of India” or the “Overseas Citizens of India Cardholders” fit into this definition; thus, they are all foreigners is true, regardless of what our hearts treat them as; however, all this is beside the point. 14. THE STAND OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AS TO EDUCATIONAL RIGHTS OF OCI CARDHOLDERS: (a) This Court vide order dated 01.03.2019 had directed the Central Government to make its stand clear, in the matter. Accordingly, it addressed a letter dated 11.03.2019 to the learned ASG Mr. C. Shashikantha who has placed the same on record vide Memo dated 18.03.2019, the relevant part whereof reads as under: “Clarification (a) The OCI Cardholders are Foreign Citizens and not Indian citizens. They have been given “parity with NRIs” vide notification dated 11.04.2005 of MHA issued under section 7B of Citizenship Act, 1955. C. Shashikantha who has placed the same on record vide Memo dated 18.03.2019, the relevant part whereof reads as under: “Clarification (a) The OCI Cardholders are Foreign Citizens and not Indian citizens. They have been given “parity with NRIs” vide notification dated 11.04.2005 of MHA issued under section 7B of Citizenship Act, 1955. the notification states that OCI Cardholders enjoy only a “parity with Non-Resident Indians in respect of all facilities available with them in economic, financial and educational fields except in matters relating to the acquisition of agriculture or plantation properties”. (b) OCI Cardholder students have been entitled only to “to appear for All India pre-medical test or such other test to make them eligible for admission in pursuance of the provisions contained in the relevant Acts” by Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs notification dated 05.01.2009. However, the eligibility criteria to in an exam for a particular course and eligibility criteria to apply under different categories of seats in that course are two different things. As brought out in para 5 above, criteria for both may be the same or different” This letter also mentions about other related subjects; this clarification in substance is consistent with the stand of the State Government, but in conflict with the Court’s understanding of subject Notifications of 2005 & 2009, as has been already discussed above. Much credence cannot be lent to the interpretation placed by the Officials of the Central Government on these Notifications, whose, texts are plain and intent is intelligible. (b) The contention of AAG Mr. Ponnanna that paragraph (b) of 2009 Notification that grants educational rights to the Overseas Citizens of India Cardholders employs the expression “in pursuance of the provisions contained in the relevant Acts” and therefore, the delegate of the Parliament had given these rights subject to State law namely Section 2(1)(n) of 2006 Act and Rule 5 of 2006 Rules appears to be too farfetched, the clarification furnished by the Officials of the Central Government, notwithstanding; accepting such an argument would virtually strike the death knell of all the educational rights conferred on the OCI Cardholders under the subject Notifications; therefore, such a construction that would render the instruments of law as conferring illusory rights on the persons of Indian origin cannot be countenanced. (c) There is yet another reason for not accepting the contention of learned AAG Mr. (c) There is yet another reason for not accepting the contention of learned AAG Mr. Ponnanna that 2009 Notification saves the operation of “relevant Acts” and therefore, the educational rights of OCI Cardholders are subject to impugned State Law, because Section 7B of 1955 Act is enacted with a non abstante clause which necessarily extends to the Delegated Legislation made thereunder namely the subject Notifications of 2005 & 2009. The term “relevant Acts” employed in paragraph (b) of 2009 Notification cannot be construed as the State Law to the extent such law curtails these rights of the OCI Cardholders; an argument to the contrary would demean the text & context of these Notifications, and defeat their very object, as is often said “means defeating the ends”. 15. WHETHER OCI CARDHOLDERS BEING THE FOREIGNERS ENJOY MORE RIGHTS THAN NONRESIDENT INDIANS WHO ARE CITIZENS? (a) The contention of Mr. Ponnanna that construing 2009 Notification as bestowing more rights on the OCI Cardholders qua the Non-resident Indians sounds illogical since such a construction would undermine the rights of the true citizens of the country i.e. the NRIs on the face of it appears attractive, but a closure scrutiny dis-covers its fallacy; the truth is that, there have been very many rights that avail to the Non-resident Indians as citizens of this country which non-citizens do not have; sub-section 2 of 7B specifically excludes all important rights from being conferred on the OCI Cardholders. (b) Secondly, even if, Mr. Ponnanna’s argument sounds logical, the same does not come to his aid when the Federal Government in its Legislative Wisdom evolves a policy conferring certain rights on the foreigners; such conferment cannot be legally faltered, either; this Court being a Co-ordinate Branch of the State cannot run a race of opinions with that of its other Co-ordinate Branches, especially in the matters relating to foreigners, which by their very nature essentially fall within their domain and rise from their accumulated wisdom. 16. AS TO DIVISION BENCH DECISION DATED 07.07.2017 IN SOUNDARYA MUTHUMARI CASE: The Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.23448/2017 & other connected matters between Soundarya Muthumari Vs. UOI & Ors. had considered the right of OCI Cardholders to avail Government Seats in professional courses. 16. AS TO DIVISION BENCH DECISION DATED 07.07.2017 IN SOUNDARYA MUTHUMARI CASE: The Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.23448/2017 & other connected matters between Soundarya Muthumari Vs. UOI & Ors. had considered the right of OCI Cardholders to avail Government Seats in professional courses. A perusal of this Judgment does not reflect that it involved challenge to the validity of impugned Section 2(1)(n) of 2006 Act or to Rule 5 of 2006 Rules which are the subject matter of present writ petitions. Therefore, irrespective of what happened before the Apex Court in the SLP against the said Judgment, no party can press the same into service for deriving any mileage. In the above circumstances, these writ petitions succeed in the following terms: (i) a writ of certiorari issues quashing the impugned Section 2(1)(n) of the Karnataka Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission & Determination of Fee) Act, 2006, as amended by Karnataka Act No.22 of 2017, to the extent it includes the ‘Overseas Citizens of India’ or ‘Overseas Citizens of India Cardholders’ within the definition of “Non-resident Indian”; (ii) a Writ of Declaratio issues to the effect that, the impugned Rule 5 of the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Government Seats in Professional Educational Institution Rules, 2006, to the extent it prescribes Indian Citizenship, is not enforceable against the Overseas Citizens of India Cardholders; (iii) a Writ of Mandamus issues directing the Respondent-State and the Respondent-Karnataka Examinations Authority to permit the Petitioners to register for CET-2019 as per the Notification dated 31.01.2019 issued by the Respondent-Karnataka Examinations Authority and further to permit their participation in the ensuing counseling of CET-2019 for selection and allotment of seats in BE/B.Tech/B.Arch or such other professional courses in Government Colleges, Private Aided/Un-aided Colleges/ Institutions for the academic year 2019-2020 on the basis of their relative merit and ranking in the imminent CET-2019; and (iv) the Respondent-Government and the Respondent-Karnataka Examination Authority shall take all steps as are necessary to facilitate and effectuate the aforesaid directions, forthwith and without brooking any delay in the matter, keeping in view the fast approaching CET-2019. Costs made easy.