Apostille Convention | Govt Shouldn't Deny Documents Procured From Signatory Countries Or They Might Return The Favour: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday, while hearing the plea of a US citizen seeking a grant of an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card on the strength of some documents issued by the Guyana government, warned the Indian government to uphold the spirit of Apostille Convention 1961.

India is a signatory to the Convention. It abolishes the requirement of legalisation for foreign public documents of a signatory country in other signatory countries.

The petitioner in this case had produced documents obtained from the Office of the General Registrar, Guyana to prove that her grandparents were Indian Immigrants.

A foreign national who was eligible to become a citizen of India on 26.01.1950 or was a citizen of India on or at any time after 26.01.1950 or belonged to a territory that became part of India after 15.08.1947 and his/her children and grandchildren is eligible for registration as an OCI.

However, Counsel for the Union of India sought time to file a counter affidavit to the documents.

This prompted the bench comprising Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Prashant Kumar to caution that since India and Guyana are both parties to the Apostille Convention, the Union should not disbelieve the documents. If the practice of denying documents procured from the government archives of other countries is adopted, then other countries will be at liberty to deny the documents issued by the Government of India, it observed.

Petitioner claimed that her grandparents were citizens of India and belonged to Allahabad. They were deported from Calcutta via ships to Guyana (British Guyana). Nagar Nigam Prayagraj had rejected the request of the petitioner for documentation relating to her ancestors on the ground that they did not have any documentation prior to the year 1900. However, a letter was issued by Village Pradhan of Jaunpur attesting that her grandfather was taken away by the Britishers.

The Petitioner had also applied for an OCI card and Visa conversion for an OCI card through her spouse, who is an Indian Citizen. However, the same were denied purely on the grounds that the marriage could not be verified.

Petitioner contended that she was being made to run between Allahabad and Jaunpur for obtaining documents for the OCI card, however, the authorities were not giving any response. On registering her complaint at the Centralized Public Grievances Redress and Monitoring System, she was directed by the Home Ministry to approach the State Authorities.

The petitioner brought before the Court documents obtained from the Office of the General Registrar, Guyana to prove that indeed her grandparents were Indian Immigrants. It argued that since both, Guyana and India, are members to the Apostille Convention (Convention of 5 October 1961 Abolishing the Requirement of Legalization for Foreign Public Documents), any document issued by Guyana would be legally valid in India. The same should have been accepted by the Ministry for the purposes of issuing the OCI card.

The court then orally remarked that the State can either believe or disbelieve the State documents of Guyana. There is no middle ground, the Court observed.

The court further said that such matters should be resolved at the earliest and State functionaries should not make people run from one district to another for a grant of OCI card.

While concluding the hearing, the Court remarked that the government websites do not provide adequate data space to upload documents. 15KB provided to upload full documentation is too less remarked Justice Kumar.

The Court has directed the Counsel for Union to verify the documents through the Embassy, if need be, before the next date of listing.

Case Title: Naromattie Devi Ganpat vs. Union Of India And 4 Others 

Counsel for Petitioner: Prateek Srivastava, Vikrant Pratap Singh and Petitioner In-person.