Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 887
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.
Raghuram (Minor), Represented by mother & natural guardian Dr. Lakshmi Sundararajan - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Prime Minister's Office, New Delhi & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 7524 of 2018 & W.M.P. Nos. 9371 & 9372 of 2018
Decided On : 13-04-2018
For the Petitioner:Ms. Nivedita S Menon, Advocate.
For the Respondents:B. Rabu Manohar, Advocate.
Overseas citizens are entitled to parity with Non-Resident Indians in respect of facilities in economic, financial, and educational fields.
Headnote:
Citizenship - International Mathematical Olympiad - Articles 5, 8, 11 of the Constitution of India, Section 7-B(1) of Citizenship Act, 1955 - The court held that the petitioner, as an overseas citizen, is entitled to parity with Non-Resident Indians in respect of all facilities available to them in economic, financial, and educational fields. The communication restricting participation to Indian passport holders was found to be in violation of the constitutional provisions and the Citizenship Act.
Fact of the Case:
The minor petitioner, born in London to Indian parents, acquired British citizenship but holds an Overseas Citizen of India Card. He was denied participation in the International Mathematical Olympiad due to a communication restricting selection to Indian passport holders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the communication restricting participation based on passport status was in violation of the constitutional provisions and the Citizenship Act. The petitioner was held entitled to parity with Non-Resident Indians in respect of facilities in economic, financial, and educational fields.
Issues: The issue revolved around the entitlement of a person holding an Overseas Citizen of India Card to be considered for selection in the International Mathematical Olympiad despite not holding an Indian passport.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Articles 5, 8, 11 of the Constitution of India, Section 7-B(1) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, and a notification specifying the rights of overseas citizens to establish the petitioner's entitlement to parity with Non-Resident Indians in educational fields.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to include the petitioner's name in the list of selectees for the International Mathematical Olympiad Training Camp and allow him to attend the camp and be considered for participation at the International Mathematical Olympiad.
1. The minor Petitioner, represented by his Mother, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the impugned communication dated 01.03.2018 issued by the 6th respondent, in so far as it restricts International Mathematical Olympiad selection to Indian passport holders and for a consequential direction to the respondents to reinstate his name in the list of selectees for the International Mathematical Olympiad Training Camp, and allow him to attend the camp scheduled from 18.04.2018 to 16.05.2018 and be considered for selection for participation at the International Mathematics Olympiad.
2. The case of the petitioner's mother is that the Petitioner, who is a minor, aged 15 years, was born in London on 14.03.2003, and is holding Indian Passport at birth in the year 2003 and later in 2009, he acquired British Passport. He obtained an Overseas Citizen of India Card on 19.05.2010. The minor Petitioner along with his parents moved to India and are residing in India since 2010. The petitioner, who is studying in India, received an impugned communication on 01.03.2018 from the 6th respondent stating that he has been selected in the International Mathematical Olympiad-2018 as an INMO-2018 awardee. The communication further states that he is invited for a 4 weeks long camp to be held by the 7th respondent scheduled from 18.04.2018 to 16.05.2018. Based on the performance through various tests, a team of 6 members will be chosen to represent India in IMO 2018. The impugned communication has a condition that the student must hold an Indian passport.
3. The minor Petitioner's mother sent a communication to Respondents 6, 7 and 8 and 8th respondents stating about the British Passport and OCI card of the Petitioner. In response, the 7th respondent, sent a communication stating that the petitioner cannot attend the camp since the Government Policy does not allow students to represent India, without holding an Indian Passport, despite being an Indian citizen. Hence, the petitioner had challenged the communication dated 01.03.2018 issued by the 6th respondent, in so far as, it restricts IMO selection to Indian Passport holders and subsequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner's name in the list of selectees for the International Mathematical Olympiad Training Camp scheduled from 18.04.2018 to 16.05.2018 for selection for participation at the International Mathematics Olympiad.
4. Though no counter is filed by Respondents 1 to 7, learned counsel appearing on their behalf, submitted that there is a specific prohibition debarring the candidates not holding Indian Passport to be in the list of selectees and that the Department of Atomic Energy, by a letter dated 10.01.2018, has categorically stated that the representation in the Olympiad may be restricted only to Indian Passport holders i.e., Indian citizens and that the petitioner, as a matter of right, cannot demand that his case shall be considered. It is his further submission that even though the minor petitioner is a meritorious student and that he is representing Tamil Nadu is disputed, the fact however remains that the child is one among the 35 students from all over India and that only 5 to 6 students are going to be selected at the International Mathematical Olympiad. As the petitioner is a U.K. citizen, not having valid Indian Passport, he cannot, as a matter of right, seek for a direction to include his name in the list of selection for IMO camp scheduled between 18.04.2018 and 16.05.2018.
5. Heard both parties and perused the materials placed on record.
6. It is not in dispute that the parents of the minor Petitioner were originally Indian citizens and they have gone abroad and have become British Citizens. It is also not in dispute that the child/minor petitioner was born in London and initially was holding Indian Passport and thereafter acquired British Passport and became a British Citizen. The factum that the entire family have come back to India and that the
