Delhi High Court: A petition was filed by the petitioner, a United States national holding the status of an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI), challenging the legality of two restrictive measures imposed upon him i.e., firstly cancellation of his OCI card under the Citizenship Act, 1955, and the Citizenship Rules, 2009 and subsequent blacklisting order issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs under the Foreigners Act, 1946, which prohibited his entry into India due to alleged involvement in activities deemed prejudicial to the interests of India. Sanjeev Narula, J., set aside both the show-cause notice and the cancellation order, as well as the blacklisting order being procedurally deficient.
The petitioner, a U.S. national, was granted OCI status in 2018, but the Indian Government later issued a show-cause notice alleging his involvement in anti-India activities. These allegations led to the cancellation of his OCI registration and blacklisting, which was contested in the petitions.
The core issue revolves around the procedural fairness of the show-cause notice issued to the Petitioner, the grounds for the cancellation of his OCI card, and the legality of the blacklisting order under the Foreigners Act, 1946. The Petitioner contended that both the notice and the final cancellation order lacked specificity, violated natural justice principles, and failed to offer a reasonable opportunity to present a defense.
The Petitioner’s OCI registration was challenged following allegations of anti-India activity, which the Government of India deemed to be against the sovereignty, integrity, and security of the nation. The initial show-cause notice cited vague allegations without specific details or evidence, stating only that the Petitioner was involved in actions that were “not in the interests of India.” This broad characterization was contested as procedurally deficient and insufficient to provide a fair chance to contest the claims.
Following the issuance of the show-cause notice, the OCI card was canceled under Section 7-D of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which allows for the cancellation of OCI registration if it is deemed necessary for national interests. Concurrently, a blacklisting order was issued under Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, barring the petitioner from re-entering India due to his alleged involvement in pro-Kashmiri separatist activities.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the show-cause notice issued by the authorities was vague and insufficient to meet the statutory requirements under Section 7-D of the Citizenship Act. The notice did not provide specific allegations or evidence against the Petitioner, failing to meet the standards of clarity and specificity required to allow an informed defense. Additionally, they argued that the procedural fairness required by the law was not adhered to, depriving the Petitioner of the opportunity to respond meaningfully.
The submissions also challenged the blacklisting order under the Foreigners Act, asserting that it was based on the same grounds as the OCI cancellation, and lacked procedural fairness as it did not follow the proper process, including the issuance of a formal order or a show-cause notice. The reliance on an affidavit in place of a formal order was further criticized for its lack of legal standing.
The Court noted that under Section 7-D of the Citizenship Act, the Government is required to issue a show-cause notice specifying the grounds for any proposed cancellation of OCI registration, ensuring that the cardholder is given a fair opportunity to respond. The Court found that the show-cause notice issued to the Petitioner was overly broad, merely asserting that the Petitioner was involved in anti-India activities without detailing any specific actions or providing supporting evidence. This vagueness was found to violate the principles of natural justice, as it deprived the Petitioner of a fair chance to mount a defense.
Further, the Court observed that while Section 3 of the Foreigners Act permits blacklisting, the procedural safeguards required by the Citizenship Act in cases of OCI cancellation were not adhered to in the blacklisting process. The use of an affidavit, which merely reiterated the same allegations as the OCI cancellation, was deemed insufficient to justify the blacklisting, and the lack of a formal order rendered the action procedurally flawed.
In analyzing the broader constitutional concerns, the Court refrained from delving into issues concerning the violation of Articles 14 and 21, as it found that the statutory framework under the Citizenship Act and the Foreigners Act provided sufficient grounds for the matter to be resolved without the need for constitutional scrutiny.
The Court concluded that the show-cause notice issued to the Petitioner for the cancellation of his OCI registration and the subsequent cancellation order were procedurally deficient. The vague and unsupported allegations did not meet the threshold required under Section 7-D of the Citizenship Act, rendering the cancellation order invalid.
Moreover, the blacklisting order, which relied on the same grounds as the OCI cancellation, was also found to be unsustainable. The use of an affidavit in place of a formal blacklisting order was not considered legally sufficient, as it lacked the procedural safeguards and clarity required by law.
As a result, the Court set aside both the show-cause notice and the cancellation order, as well as the blacklisting order. The Petitioner was allowed to re-enter India, subject to a fresh notice being issued by the Respondents. The Court directed that the government issue a new show-cause notice specifying clear and detailed grounds for any proposed action, and provide the Petitioner with an opportunity to respond, process to be completed within six weeks, ensuring that the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness were upheld.
Finally, the Court emphasized that the government retains the sovereign prerogative to grant or deny entry into India based on national security concerns. However, any actions taken must comply with the statutory framework and procedural fairness, balancing individual rights with national security interests. The matter was disposed of with these directions, and all pending applications were also concluded.
[Khalid Jahangir Qazi v UOI, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7847, decided on 12-11-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Apoorv P. Tripathi, Ms. Anjali Kaushik, Ms. Arushi Mishra and Mr. Apaan Mittal, Advocates for petitioner
Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr. Apoorv Kurup, CGSC, Mr. Farman Ali, SPC, Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Mr. Vinay Yadav, Ms. Usha Jamwal, Mr. Shubham Sharma, Mr. Arnav Mittal and Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, Advocates for UOI.
