In a landmark decision, the Delhi High Court has ruled that security clearance for Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) registration cannot be denied solely based on the criminal accusations against the applicant’s spouse. The judgment, delivered by Justice Sanjeev Narula, emphasizes the need for concrete evidence of direct involvement in criminal activities to deny such clearances.
Case Background
The case, Anastasiia Pivtsaeva & Anr. vs. Union of India & Anr. (W.P.(C) 436/2023), involved petitioners Anastasiia Pivtsaeva and her minor son, both Russian nationals. Anastasiia, who married Indian citizen Amit Bhardwaj in 2019, applied for OCI status for herself and her son in December 2021. Unfortunately, Amit Bhardwaj passed away in January 2022, and the applications were subsequently closed by the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) without detailed explanations.
Legal Issues
The primary legal issue revolved around the denial of OCI registration based on the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against Anastasiia’s late husband, Amit Bhardwaj, who was under investigation by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for money laundering. The respondents argued that Anastasiia’s association with her husband, who was the main accused, raised suspicions about her involvement in the alleged crimes, thereby justifying the denial of security clearance required under Section 7A(1)(d) of the Citizenship Act, 1955.
Court’s Decision
Justice Sanjeev Narula, in his judgment dated July 22, 2024, quashed the decisions to close the OCI applications and directed the authorities to reassess the applications afresh. The court highlighted several key observations:
1. Lack of Concrete Evidence: The court noted that mere familial relationship or association with an accused does not substantiate grounds for denying security clearance. There must be concrete evidence of direct involvement or complicity in the alleged crimes.
2. Principles of Fairness and Reasonableness: The court emphasized that decisions affecting legal rights and status must adhere to principles of fairness and reasonableness under Article 14 of the Constitution. Arbitrary decisions, even under the guise of national security, must be backed by credible evidence and a transparent process.
3. Contradictory Stance of Authorities: The court pointed out the contradictory position of the respondents, where an LOC prevented Anastasiia from leaving the country, yet her visa extension was not favored, placing her in a precarious position.
4. Minor Child’s Eligibility: The court also addressed the OCI application of Anastasiia’s minor son, stating that there is no requirement for prior security clearance under Section 7A(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act for minor children of Indian citizens. The ongoing investigations involving his parents do not provide a valid ground for denying him OCI status.
Key Observations
Justice Narula remarked, “Mere association or familial relationship with an accused, without concrete evidence of direct involvement or complicity in the alleged crimes, does not substantiate the grounds for denying security clearance under Section 7A(1)(d) of the Citizenship Act and neither does it withstand the test of arbitrariness and reasonableness under Article 14 of the Constitution”.
Also Read
Lawyers and Parties Involved
– Petitioners: Anastasiia Pivtsaeva and her minor son
– Petitioners’ Counsel: Mr. Tanveer Ahmad Mir, Mr. Ayush Jain, Mr. Tushar Thakur, Mr. Yashovardhan Upadhyay, and Ms. Anushka Khaitan
– Respondents: Union of India & Anr.
– Respondents’ Counsel: Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain, SPC with Mr. Rahul Kumar Sharma, G.P., and Mr. Kautilya Birat
