The Delhi High Court on Thursday recalled its previous orders granting relief to Siddharth Varadarajan, founding editor of The Wire, after observing that he had prima facie suppressed material facts regarding a 2020 order from the Allahabad High Court. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav restored the writ petition and issued a notice to Varadarajan, demanding an affidavit to explain his conduct within seven working days.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the petitioner had maintained “full disclosure” while seeking the conversion of his Person of Indian Origin (PIO) status to Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) and requesting a “return visa” for international travel. The court scrutinized whether the non-disclosure of a binding High Court order, which imposed travel restrictions and passport surrender conditions, constituted an abuse of the judicial process.
Varadarajan, a US citizen, had approached the Delhi High Court challenging the Centre’s April 2 decision to reject his application for converting his PIO status to OCI. On May 12, the court had initially set aside the Centre’s rejection on the grounds that it was unreasoned. Subsequently, on May 13, the court directed authorities to consider his application for a “return visa” to allow him to travel to Estonia for a professional commitment between May 14 and 19.
However, it later emerged that the journalist was subject to a 2020 order by the Allahabad High Court. That order had granted him anticipatory bail in a criminal case—stemming from allegedly objectionable tweets against Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath—but imposed strict conditions, including the surrender of his passport and a prohibition on traveling abroad without the trial court’s permission.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma, appearing for the Union of India, submitted that the material discovered against the petitioner was “disconcerting.” He argued that the petitioner had “conveniently suppressed” the Allahabad High Court’s directions. The ASG further informed the court that a chargesheet had already been filed in the criminal case in a Uttar Pradesh trial court and that police summons had been issued to the journalist in the past.
Varadarajan’s senior counsel offered an apology to the court, stating that the existence of the 2020 order had “slipped” her mind during the earlier proceedings.
Justice Kaurav emphasized the fundamental principle that a petitioner must approach the court with “full disclosure.” The court noted that the entire pleadings and submissions failed to mention the binding directions of the Allahabad High Court.
The court observed:
“In all fairness, the petitioner should have truthfully disclosed the said aspect. The court is prima facie of the opinion that the petitioner is guilty of suppressing material facts.”
The Judge further asserted that as a general rule, a litigant who deceives the court is disqualified from obtaining relief. Justice Kaurav remarked that such actions necessitate a deterrent response to prevent the abuse of the court’s process. Warning of “serious consequences,” the court noted that the situation was “very unpleasant” and required a formal explanation from the journalist.
The Delhi High Court recalled its May 12 and May 13 orders in their entirety. The writ petition has been restored to its original status. The court has directed Varadarajan to file an explanation for his conduct via an affidavit and has listed the matter for further hearing on May 25, at which point the court will decide whether to take further action against the petitioner.
