OCI Cards Cannot Be Cancelled Arbitrarily Without Giving a Hearing: Delhi High Court
Kiran Raj
The Delhi High Court Single Bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholder cannot be denied entry into India through blacklisting without adherence to the procedural safeguards enshrined in the Citizenship Act, 1955. The Court held that procedural safeguards introduced by the 2019 amendment to Section 7D, which mandate a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any action affecting an OCI cardholder's rights, were not followed. The Court found that the petitioner's rights under Section 7B of the Citizenship Act could not be curtailed through a process that excluded compliance with Section 7D. The respondents were accordingly directed to initiate proceedings afresh in accordance with law.
The petitioner, a U.S. national and holder of an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) Card bearing No. A2327906, sought directions permitting him to enter India on the basis of his valid OCI status. The petition further sought the quashing of any order restraining his entry into India and requested disclosure of reasons for his deportation.
The petitioner, born in Virginia, USA, in 1963, is married to an Indian national. The couple moved to Dimapur, Nagaland, in 1994, where they jointly own residential property. The petitioner, who initially entered India on multiple five-year visas, transitioned from a PIO to an OCI cardholder in 2016. On October 31, 2024, upon returning from the United States, the petitioner was denied entry into India at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, despite holding a valid OCI card. He was deported without any formal communication, order, or explanation.
The petitioner filed several representations seeking reasons for denial of entry, including one addressed to the Home Department of Nagaland, which responded that it possessed no information regarding the grounds of deportation. No subsequent communication was received from the respondents.
In court, the petitioner contended that the rights under Section 7B of the Citizenship Act grant OCI cardholders a multiple-entry lifelong visa and that these rights cannot be nullified without adherence to the procedure prescribed under Section 7D. It was submitted that the respondents had violated the principles of natural justice by denying the petitioner both the reasons for deportation and the opportunity to respond. The petitioner relied on Khalid Jahangir Qazi v. Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7847, to support the argument that the procedural safeguards of Section 7D must apply even to blacklisting, where such action amounts to cancellation of rights under the Act.
The petitioner further distinguished his case from that of Khalid Jahangir Qazi, asserting that in his case, no allegations of anti-India activities were made. The alleged engagement in “missionary activities,” he argued, was merely regulated and not prohibited under Indian law. The petitioner asserted that the respondents’ reliance on the Ministry of Home Affairs Notification dated March 4, 2021, was arbitrary, as the same notification stemmed from Section 7B of the Citizenship Act but was being used to bypass its procedural protections.
The petitioner also submitted that “missionary activities” are not clearly defined in law and that Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees the right to freely profess and propagate one’s religion. Reference was made to Dr. Christo Thomas Philip v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6426, to reinforce this position.
The respondents, represented by the Central Government Standing Counsel, opposed the petition, stating that the petitioner had been blacklisted by security agencies due to his involvement in missionary activities without prior permission as required under the March 4, 2021, notification. It was submitted that the petitioner had violated the conditions attached to his OCI status and that under Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, the government retains the sovereign right to restrict the entry of any foreign national, including OCI cardholders.
The respondents further contended that blacklisting overrides all visa categories and that foreign nationals, including OCI cardholders, cannot claim entry as a matter of right if found engaging in activities detrimental to India’s interests. The respondents also relied on Union of India v. Savitha Kumar, LPA 219/2019, to argue that prior intimation is not necessary before blacklisting.
The Court examined the legal framework governing the rights of OCI cardholders under the Citizenship Act, 1955, specifically Sections 7B and 7D, along with the relevant notifications issued thereunder. Referring to the March 4, 2021, notification, the Court noted that while certain activities, such as missionary work, require prior permission, the general entitlement under the law includes “grant of multiple entry lifelong visa for visiting India for any purpose.”
Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Anushka Rengunthwar v. Union of India, (2023) 11 SCC 209, the Court observed that “the right of the OCI cardholders is a midway right in the absence of dual citizenship. When a statutory right was conferred and such right is being withdrawn through a notification, the process for withdrawal is required to demonstrate that the action taken is reasonable and has nexus to the purpose.”
The Court underscored that procedural safeguards are embedded within Section 7D of the Citizenship Act, which stipulates that no order cancelling an OCI registration may be passed without giving the affected individual a “reasonable opportunity of being heard.”
It recorded that the respondents had taken the position that blacklisting under Section 3 of the Foreigners Act overrides all other provisions and requires neither explanation nor hearing. The Court found this stance contrary to its own decision in Khalid Jahangir Qazi v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7847, where it was observed: “the 2019 amendment’s requirement of a ‘reasonable opportunity of being heard,’ when read along with the requirement of ‘satisfaction,’ manifests that an order to cancel OCI registration must transparently reflect both the grounds for cancellation and a fair decision-making process.”
The Court acknowledged the need to reconcile the Citizenship Act with the Foreigners Act through a “harmonious interpretation.” It stated that when the grounds for blacklisting an OCI cardholder mirror those listed in Section 7D, the procedural safeguards under the Citizenship Act must be applied, even if the government invokes its powers under the Foreigners Act. Otherwise, it observed, such action would “run the risk [of] undermining the very purpose of the OCI scheme.”
It further noted: “Allowing the State to circumvent the safeguards embedded in the OCI scheme would erode the privileges the legislature intended for OCI card-holders, undermining both the purpose and object of the status of OCI card-holders under the Citizenship Act, 1955.”
The Court rejected the respondents’ reliance on Union of India v. Savitha Kumar, holding that the decision predated the 2019 amendment to Section 7D, which introduced the mandatory hearing requirement. It cited an order dated August 3, 2023, in Khalid Jahangir Qazi v. Union of India, W.P.(C)-7755/2023, which clarified that “the Judgment dated 28.08.2019 was passed prior to the amendment in the Citizenship Act.”
The Court observed that in the present case, the petitioner was “not informed that he had been blacklisted nor given an opportunity to contest the allegations against him.” It recorded that “the expression ‘reasonable opportunity of being heard’ has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in a catena of cases. It is now well settled that the same subsumes an effective opportunity to meet the relevant allegations.”
It further recorded:
“Consequently, both the deportation of the petitioner and the process of blacklisting him fail to meet the statutory requirement/s prescribed under Section 7-D of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Given that the petitioner continues to hold a valid OCI card, his rights as an Overseas Citizen of India cannot be curtailed arbitrarily.”
Concluding that the process adopted by the respondents violated statutory safeguards, the Court directed: “the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to serve a show cause notice as regards the ‘black-listing’ of the petitioner and pass a speaking order after duly considering the response of the petitioner thereto, and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.”
The Court also stated that it had not made any determination on the merits of the allegations against the petitioner, stating: “this Court has not rendered any opinion on the merits of the allegations against the petitioner or on whether such allegations warrant blacklisting of the petitioner and/or cancellation of his OCI card under Section 7-D of the Citizenship Act, 1955.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Dr. Amit George, Mr. Dhiraj Abraham Philip, Mr. Febin Mathew Varghese, Ms. Ibansara Syiemlieh, Ms. Achalika Ahuja and Mr. Naveen Richard, Advocates
For the Respondents: Ms. Nidhi Raman, Central Government Standing Counsel along with Mr. Zubin Singh and Mr. Arnav Mittal, Advocates
Case Title: John Robert Roughton III v. Union of India & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:1745
Case Number: W.P.(C) 17113/2024
Bench: Justice Sachin Datta
[Read/Download order]
