The Narendra Modi government’s cancellation of the Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) card of Professor Nitasha Kaul, a British-based academic of Kashmiri origin, has again sparked a debate on the need for such strong action for anyone pushing an agenda that intends to harm the nation.
Courts in the country have frequently intervened, granting relief to individuals whose OCI cards have been revoked, by overturning such orders. While the Union government has justified these cancellations on grounds such as national security or violations of OCI regulations, it needs to be seen whether judicial precedents would be cited and Prof Kaul too will receive the benefit of these.
It must be noted that on May 18, 2025, Professor Nitasha Kaul, a London-based academic, announced that her OCI status had been revoked. The cancellation, which reportedly occurred a year after she was denied entry into India in February 2024, is allegedly linked to her criticism of the Indian government’s policies.
Kaul, who holds a British passport, has described the move as an attempt to silence dissent. It must be noted that the central government has not yet publicly detailed the specific reasons for Kaul’s OCI cancellation.
Read this also https://tfipost.com/2025/05/murshidabad-violence-tmc-leader-named-in-fact-finding-report-police-inaction-highlighted/
The OCI scheme, introduced in 2005, grants foreign citizens of Indian ancestry certain privileges, such as visa-free travel to India, but it also allows the government to revoke status under broad circumstances, including actions deemed “prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India.”
Why doubts arise on possible judicial intervention?
In one of the most high profile judgements, the Delhi High Court recently set aside the Centre’s directive cancelling the OCI card of Sweden-based academic and open India-basher Professor Ashok Swain, emphasizing the need for due process and transparency.
Swain’s card was cancelled by the Indian government on July 30, 2023, reportedly due to his critical social media posts and writings against the country, its people and the government. The Delhi High Court intervened twice in his favor, despite the government’s pleas against it.
On March 28, 2025, the court set aside the cancellation order, ruling that the government’s decision lacked sufficient justification and violated principles of natural justice. The court emphasized that OCI cardholders’ rights cannot be curtailed arbitrarily and that due process must be followed. Earlier, in 2023, the court had also granted interim relief to Swain, allowing him to retain his OCI status pending a final decision.
The Delhi High Court’s April 2025 ruling in Swain’s case explicitly stated that OCI rights cannot be revoked without a fair hearing, setting a strong precedent for future challenges, including Kaul’s.
These precedents create a doubt whether the cancellation of Professor Kaul’s OCI card appears to fit into a broader pattern of targeting individuals perceived as critical of the Indian government. These judicial interventions highlight a recurring theme, while the government wields significant discretion to cancel OCI cards, courts have consistently demanded transparency, evidence, and adherence to due process.
It must also be emphasized that the government needs to improve its ability to substantiate its claims for revocation of OCI cards of persons deemed unfit to hold the privilege before the courts.
