The High Court of Judicature at Madras has upheld the cancellation of an American citizen’s Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) registration , ruling that conducting missionary activities without prior official permission constitutes a violation of the statutory conditions prescribed under the Citizenship Act, 1955 . Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy dismissed the petition filed by John Daniel, determining that his engagement in religious preaching across parts of Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, despite failing to secure the mandatory authorization , provided valid legal grounds for the Ministry of Home Affairs to rescind his cardholder status .

The court rejected the petitioner's argument that his visits to India were exclusively for personal and family-related purposes, such as supporting his 92-year-old mother. While the court acknowledged his familial ties, it found that the evidence presented by the Union of India , which included posters and online documentation of religious meetings, contradicted his claims. The ruling clarified that the requirement for prior permission is not limited to activities resulting in religious conversions but encompasses the act of preaching itself.

"It is not only for conversion, but even to be a missionary preaching his religion, it is only a prior permission that is mandated," the court noted in its order, emphasizing that the lack of conversion proof did not negate the necessity for administrative clearance.

Evidence of Unsanctioned Religious Activities

The legal dispute originated from an order issued by the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer on September 4, 2026 , which revoked the petitioner’s OCI registration under Section 7D(da) and (e) of the Citizenship Act. In his challenge, the petitioner contended that he had been unjustly targeted and that the government failed to specify incidents of his alleged missionary work. He specifically denied any affiliation with the Laymen’s Evangelical Fellowship International or involvement in religious activities in interior villages, characterizing the allegations as unfounded.

However, the respondents produced substantial material, including advertisements and recordings of religious gatherings from 2017 to 2019 . These documents included posters featuring the petitioner's photograph and mobile numbers of organizers, which the court observed were sufficient to establish that he was actively engaged in religious outreach. The court found that these materials directly undermined the petitioner's assertion that his visits were solely to visit family and friends, leading the bench to conclude that the petitioner's statements to the court were inconsistent with the factual record.

Principles of Natural Justice in Administrative Action

Addressing the petitioner’s contention that his right to a fair hearing was violated, the court examined the threshold for procedural fairness . The petitioner had relied on previous judicial precedents to argue that the failure to disclose all materials collected against him deprived him of an " effective and real " opportunity to defend himself.

Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, however, distinguished this case from those requiring a detailed disclosure of every piece of evidence, noting that the petitioner had opted for a " wholesale denial " of the activities rather than addressing the specific evidence presented. The court remarked, "The principles of natural justice are not a straight-jacket formula , and their application depends on the facts of each case."

The court held that because the petitioner categorically denied any involvement in missionary work—a claim the court found to be demonstrably false in light of the provided posters and meeting advertisements—he could not seek further relief by claiming procedural prejudice. The judgment emphasized that the court’s equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could not be extended to a party presenting a " blatant, bald denial " in the face of verified administrative evidence .

Regulatory Compliance for OCI Cardholders

The ruling serves as a significant clarification of the rights and obligations associated with OCI registration. Under the terms of the Central Government’s notification S.O. 1050(E), issued pursuant to Section 7B of the Citizenship Act , cardholders are granted a multiple-entry lifelong visa for various purposes. However, this privilege is explicitly conditional upon obtaining prior special permission for specific activities, including missionary work, public speaking, mountaineering, and journalism.

The judgment confirms that the Central Government maintains the authority to cancel registration where these conditions are bypassed. By operating within the jurisdiction of the Citizenship Act and adhering to the notification, the government’s action was deemed legally sound by the court.

The court underscored that the cancellation was a consequence of the specific failure to obtain authorization rather than a general restriction on religious expression. In its final directions, the court permitted the petitioner to apply for a regular visa if he wished to visit his mother or other relatives in India in the future. Furthermore, it noted that if the petitioner intends to conduct religious meetings or engage in missionary activities, he must follow the prescribed legal channels and secure the requisite official permissions from the concerned Indian mission or regional authorities before undertaking such activities.

The petition was dismissed, and all connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, with no order issued as to costs, effectively leaving the government’s cancellation order in full force. The matter currently stands concluded, with the petitioner now subject to standard visa regulations should he seek to re-enter the country.