SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 17158

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J
Anandharaj Thangavelu – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India – Respondent
Writ Petition | W.M.P(MD) Nos.2873 and 2874 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.M.S.Suresh Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr.K.Govindarajan Deputy Solicitor General of India

The court confirmed that joining a foreign police service disqualifies an individual from holding an Overseas Citizenship of India, invalidating their OCI Card.

Headnote:This case considers the application for Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) by an individual previously holding an OCI Card. The Court clarified that the cancellation procedure involved under the Citizenship Act, should have provided an opportunity, yet in this case, the order was justified as the petitioner had joined a foreign police force. The petitioner was ineligible for the OCI under the stated regulations, leading to the court's rejection of the appeal. The court ultimately concluded that there is no basis for reversing the order, allowing no order as to costs.

Table of Content
1. the petitioner sought to quash an order regarding their oci card due to service in foreign police. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. details provided about the petitioner's qualifications and the implications of their employment status. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 12)
3. legal arguments centered on disqualification due to foreign service and the statutory framework. (Para 7 , 9 , 10 , 13)
4. the court upheld the maintainability objection and the appropriate legal outcome. (Para 11 , 15)

O R D E R

The present writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the order passed by the second respondent herein, wherein the petitioner has been directed to surrender his Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) Card before the nearest Indian Consulate / High Commission.

2. Since the second respondent is located in Perth, Western Australia, Registry has raised an objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition and it is listed under the caption “for maintainability”.

3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, the petitioner had obtained Bachelor's degree in Law and enrolled himself with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, Chennai and he was practicing before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court and later he got married and relocated to Australia in the year 2011 and he had acquired Australian citizenship in the year 2017.

4. The petitioner has made an application for Overseas Citizenship of India to the second respondent and he was granted the same under Section 7-A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. The petitioner had completed a bridging course in Law in Australia and was admitted as a Lawyer by the Supreme Court of Western Australia on 04.07.2025.

5. Based upon his qualification, the petitioner was appointed as a Confiscation Officer on a fixed-term contractual basis with the Western Australian police. According to him, the said job is purely civil in nature and he was neither trained by the Police Department, nor was provided with any Uniform.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that when the petitioner updated his personal details like change of address and occupation into the OCI portal in April 2025, he got a reply that his status has been approved. Thereafter, he was travelling to India with his OCI booklet as usual. Suddenly, on 21.01.2026, the petitioner has received an email from the second respondent to the effect that since he has joined the Police Department, he is not eligible to hold an OCI Card and he was directed to surrender the same to the nearest Indian Consulate/High Commission, which is under challenge.

7. According to the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, the cancellation procedure is contemplated under Section 7-D of Citizenship Act, 1955. As per the proviso to the selection, unless opportunity is granted to the OCI Cardholder, the card cannot be cancelled by the authorities. However, in the present case, the card has been cancelled directly without issuing any notice or conducting any enquiry.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the contractual work that has been undertaken by him in Western Australian Police Department is only offering legal advice to them and it is civil in nature therefore that cannot be construed to be in a service in the Police Department of Western Australia. In such circumstances, unless an opportunity had been granted to him, the present impugned order could not have been passed.

9. The learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner had been conferred with an OCI Card under Section 7-A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. He further relied upon a publication issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 22.07.2021, wherein it has been specifically stated that a person who joins a foreign military or police service, whether serving or retired, is not eligible for registration as an OCI Cardholder. Therefore, any registra

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top