Mere Familial Relationship With PMLA Accused Not A Ground For Denying Security Clearance For OCI Registration: Delhi HC
|The Delhi High Court observed that mere familial relationship with an accused without complicity in the alleged crime is not a ground for denying security clearance under Section 7A(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act for OCI registration.
The Court clarified that there was no requirement for a prior security clearance under Section 7A(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 (the Act) which provided for Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) registration of a minor child of a citizen of India. The Bench also stated that an ongoing investigation involving the parents was not a valid ground for denying OCI status to a minor child.
A Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula observed, “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.”
Advocate Tanveer Ahmad Mir appeared for the petitioners, while SPC Satya Ranjan Swain represented the respondents.
The petitioners (the mother and her minor son) were Russian nationals who challenged the Foreigners Regional Registration Office’s (FRRO) decision to close their OCI applications without providing specific reasons. The mother was married to an Indian citizen, who passed away in 2022 during the investigation of a Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) case against him.
The Government Authorities argued that the mother’s OCI application was denied due to a Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against her late husband by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) under the PMLA. It was stated that the late husband was the subject of an LOC with the remarks "Detain and Inform originator," and therefore, the mother’s association with her husband posed concerns regarding compliance with the law.
“The fact that there are ongoing investigations involving his parents does not, under the cited statute, provide a valid ground for denying him OCI status. The statutory framework does not condition the eligibility of a minor child on the legal status or background of the parents for the purposes of OCI registration. Hence, the decision to reject Petitioner No. 2’s application appears to be unsupported by the law and reflects a mis-application of the statutory provisions governing OCI eligibility,” the Court stated.
The Bench noted that the fundamental reason behind the denial of OCI status to the Petitioners hinged on the issuance of an LOC against the mother and her suspected involvement with her husband's business. The FRRO asserted that the mother failed to meet the mandatory security clearance which is a prerequisite for OCI registration. The Court pointed out that the situation of the minor son was complicated since both of his parents were subjects of LOCs.
“It is important to note that, while an LOC has been issued against her, there is no criminal case registered directly against her, which distinguishes her situation from those typically associated with such circulars,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court held, “The Respondents are directed to consider the OCI application of Petitioner No. 1 and 2 afresh, in order to take a decision thereon, in light of the observations made by this Court.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Anastasiia Pivtsaeva & Anr. v. Union Of India & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:5610)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Tanveer Ahmad Mir, Ayush Jain, Tushar Thakur, Yashovardhan Upadhyay and Anushka Khaitan
Respondents: SPC Satya Ranjan Swain; G.P. Rahul Kumar Sharma; Advocate Kautilya Birat