Madras High Court Dismisses OCI Bridge Player's Appeal Against Centre's Policy Permitting Only Citizens To Participate In International Events
While refusing to interfere with an order denying permission to an Overseas Citizen of India to participate in International Bridge tournaments on behalf of the Bridge Federation of India, the Madras High Court observed that the policy framed by the Central Government clearly stated that only Indians could participate in such tournaments and in such cases, the courts could not be called...
While refusing to interfere with an order denying permission to an Overseas Citizen of India to participate in International Bridge tournaments on behalf of the Bridge Federation of India, the Madras High Court observed that the policy framed by the Central Government clearly stated that only Indians could participate in such tournaments and in such cases, the courts could not be called upon to interfere.
The bench of Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice PB Balaji thus refused to interfere with an order of the single judge dismissing the writ filed by the overseas Indian citizen seeking to be treated on par with NRIs.
“When a policy decision is taken by the Central Government that only Indians would be permitted to represent India and participate in international sports events, the courts cannot to be called upon to interfere with such decisions of the State. The appellant admittedly chose to voluntarily leave the shores of India and settle down in the United States of America. He acquired citizenship there. Subsequently, by virtue of provisions of Section 7-A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (introduced by way of Act 6 of 2004 and subsequently by Amendment in Act 1 of 2015), he became an Overseas Citizen of India,” the court observed.
The petitioner Vignesh, who obtained American citizenship in 1996 had challenged a letter issued by the Bridge Federation informing him that he would be entitled to play in national championships/tournaments only and he would not be eligible to participate in national selection trials conducted by Federation to select teams to represent the Federation internationally.
Though the letter also mentioned two circulars, Vignesh claimed that the circulars were not applicable to him as he was not seeking for any aid or funds or sought to walk under the Indian flag and thus had not challenged the circulars. Vignesh also submitted that Section 7-B of the Citizenship Act, which listed out categories that were impermissible for an OCI to claim rights did not include bridge and thus there was no impediment or statutory/legal bar to allow him to represent the Federation.
Placing reliance on notifications issued by the Central Government granting lifelong visa for overseas Indians, Vignesh also claimed that when the overseas Indian was entitled to a lifelong visa for visiting India for any purpose and was given the same rights and privileges as a foreigner, denying his request to participate was impermissible.
The court however refused to accept this contention. The court observed that if the intention of the Ministry of Home Affairs was to give blanket permission for an overseas Indian citizen, it would not have set out various requirements for eligible persons. The court emphasized that entry into the country was one aspect and eligibility to participate in international events was another aspect entirely.
“The clause stating that an Overseas Citizen of India is permitted to enter India for any purpose cannot be extended and interpreted in such a manner to include permitting such an Overseas Citizen of India to participate in international Bridge events. Entry into the country is one aspect and his entitlement or eligibility to participate in International Events representing the 1st Respondent or India is entirely another aspect,” the court observed.
The court also observed that as per the notification, the overseas Indian citizens were given the same privileges of a foreigner only for specific clause and in the present case, Vignesh did not fall in any of the clauses and thus he was not entitled to any other right or privilege that an Indian citizen or a Non-resident Indian enjoyed.
The court agreed with the Federation’s submission that it was affiliated to the Central Government and thus bound to follow the National Sports Development Code of Indian 2011.
The court also disagreed with the stand taken by Vignesh that the two circulars were not applicable to him. The court observed that circular had to be read as a whole and not be interpreted in such a manner to mean that it pertained to permitting Overseas Citizens becoming entitled to receive government aid.
With respect to the second circular, though Vignesh claimed that it pertained to Indian nationals being eligible to be a part of the national team and walk under the Indian flag, the court opined that circular clearly dealt with permitting foreign national of Indian origins in national teams.
Thus, the court opined that the plea was not maintainable without challenging the two circulars and even otherwise, Section 7B of the Citizenship Act was not applicable in the present case.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.G.Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel for M/s.G.R.Associates
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.Srinath Sridevan, Senior Counsel for Mr.Bhagavath Krishnan for R1 Mr.Venkatasamy Babu , SPC for R2
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 311
Case Title: G Venkatesh v Bridge Federation of India
Case No: W.A.No.888 of 2015