The court ruled that the writ petitioner needed to comply with submission requirements before contesting a communication from authorities regarding OCI status.

JUDGMENT

[Judgment of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.

(MD)No.3505 of 2026, dated 25.02.2026, whereby the Writ Petition was disposed of granting liberty to the writ petitioner to approach the concerned authorities to obtain a fresh Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) card upon his relief from the Western Australia Police Department, the writ petitioner, as appellant, has preferred the present Writ Appeal.

2.The appellant/writ petitioner filed the said Writ Petition seeking to quash the communication dated 21.01.2026 issued by the second respondent, whereby the writ petitioner was requested to surrender his OCI card before the authority concerned along with supporting documents.

3.According to the writ petitioner, he had made an application under Section 7-A of the Citizenship Act, 1995, and was admitted as a lawyer by the Supreme Court of Western Australia on 04.07.2025. Based on his qualification, he was appointed as a Confiscation Officer on a fixed-term contractual basis with the Western Australia Police.

4.While being so employed, the communication dated

21.01.2026 was issued by the second respondent primarily on the ground that the writ petitioner was then employed with the Police Department in Australia. Since the writ petitioner was employed in a foreign Police Department, there exists a regulation under the Citizenship Act which does not permit issuance of an OCI card in such circumstances. Hence, the communication was issued. Challenging the same, the writ petitioner filed the Writ Petition.

5.The learned Single Judge, after considering the relevant provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955, disposed of the Writ Petition with liberty to the writ petitioner to approach the concerned authorities to obtain a fresh OCI card upon being relieved from the Western Australia Police Department.

6.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.

7.We have perused the entire record. After hearing the submissions, we are of the view that the filing of the Writ Petition was misconceived. The communication merely required the surrender of the OCI booklet on the ground of employment in the Police Department, along with a request to produce the passport and supporting documents at the time of surrender. Instead of surrendering the OCI booklet and explaining that he was not engaged in the Police Department, the writ petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, challenge the communication.

8.No final order had been passed at that stage. The writ petitioner was only asked to surrender the OCI booklet and provide an explanation. Without complying, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner has now acquired Australian citizenship. While it is contended that he is no longer employed in the Police Department, it is for him to establish the same before the authorities concerned. When the authorities called upon, he ought to have submitted his explanation.

9.In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the Writ Appeal. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed, with liberty to the appellant/writ petitioner to appear before the authority concerned and furnish a proper explanation within fifteen days from today. On receipt of such explanation, the authorities shall decide the matter in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.