Don't Tweet On Judiciary, Sub-Judice Issues: Karnataka High Court While Staying Actor Chetan Kumar's OCI Cancellation Till June 2

The Karnataka High Court by way of interim relief has stayed the operation of an order passed by the Union government cancelling the Overseas Citizen of India card (OCI) issued to Kannada actor and social activist, Chetan A Kumar.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said “I deem it appropriate, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to direct the respondents not to precipitate the matter qua the OCI card, till the next date of hearing—June 2.”

The court has granted relief on the condition that Kumar submits an affidavit of undertaking to the court stating that he would encourage restraint on the tweets qua judiciary and matters that are sub-judice and would further undertake that he would delete the tweets that are against the judiciary and matters that are sub-judice.

Kumar had approached the court after the Union government cancelled the OCI card invoking Rule 35(2) of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 on the allegation that Kumar had indulged himself in anti-India activities.

Kumar was granted the OCI card on 2.11.2018. Since he was a frequent traveller to the United States to visit his family members, the aforesaid card was sought and was granted.

On 08.06.2022, the FRRO, Bureau of Immigration, issued a show cause notice to him seeking to show cause as to why his OCI card should not be cancelled. It was alleged that he was involved in the criminal activities caused hatred and disharmony against the communities in the State; he had earlier violated all COVID norms and therefore, the card was sought to be cancelled, invoking Section 7D(b) and 7D(e) of the Citizenship Act, 1955.

A detailed reply was submitted by Kumar which was found to be "bereft of plausible explanation" by the authorities, passed the impugned order. Following which Kumar approached the court.

Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi, appearing for Kumar contended that he is entitled to an opportunity of hearing, apart from issuance of a show cause notice, which admittedly has not been afforded to Kumar. Further, Section 7D(b) and (e) to get attracted, the offence must be against the national interest or his acts should be inimical thereof.

Section 7D of the Act deals with cancellation of registration of an OCI cardholder on certain circumstances—-The cardholder should have obtained the card by means of fraud, misrepresentation or concealment; the cardholder should have shown disaffection towards the Constitution, as by law established; cardholder during any war in which India may be engaged, unlawfully traded or communicated an enemy or been engaged of identical activities; the cardholder within 5 years of registration has been sentenced to imprisonment for a term not less than 2 years; the cardholder has violated any of the provisions of the Citizenship Act or has acted against the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, or its security and friendly relations of this nation with any other nation.

Referring to the impugned order the bench noted that what is invoked in the case at hand is, Section 7D(b) showing disaffection to the Constitution and 7D(e) doing things against the sovereignty and integrity of India inter alia.

It said “A perusal at the aforesaid provisions qua the allegations, in the opinion of the Court, would not prima facie meet its ingredients. The acts of the petitioner must be established that it is inimical to the national interest, for which the respondents need to justify by way of filing the statement of objections.” Following which it stayed the order.

Deputy Solicitor General Shanthi Bhushan, and Additional Advocate General Aruna Shyam, for the respondents, opposed the plea and grant of any such order restraining the respondents from acting upon the OCI card. It was said that Kumar is in the habit of tweeting about the judiciary and the matters that are sub-judice.

Following which the court said “Therefore, the aforesaid protection order, during the pendency of the petition, shall be on the condition that the petitioner files an affidavit of undertaking within the next 4 days, from the receipt of a certified copy of the order that he would encourage restraint on the tweets qua judiciary and matters that are sub-judice and further undertakes that he would delete the tweets that are against the judiciary and matters that are sub-judice.”

It clarified that “All the aforesaid would however be subject to the final orders that would be passed by this Court after hearing all the parties. Any violation of the undertaking by the petitioner would entail automatic vacation of the interim protection. For the aforesaid reasons and subject to the aforesaid conditions, the respondents shall not precipitate the issue qua the OCI card of the petitioner, in any manner, till the next date of hearing.”

Case Title: Chetan Kumar And Union of India & others

Case No: WP 9171/2023

Date of Order: 21-04-2023

Appearance: Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi for Advocate Ashwini O for petitioner.

DSGI Shanthi Bhushan, R1 to R3.

AAG Aruna Shyam, for R4.