Madras High Court: Upholding the cancellation of Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) registration, a Single Judge Bench of D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J., held that to carry out any missionary activity as an OCI cardholder, special permission is required under Notification S.O.1050(E), dated 4 March 2021 (Notification). Continuing such activities without the requisite permission would amount to violation under Section 7-B, Citizenship Act, 1955 and would lead to cancellation of OCI registration. Rejecting the petitioner’s plea that he had not been afforded an effective opportunity to contest the allegations, the Court observed that his wholesale denial of missionary activities was contradicted by substantial material showing that he had repeatedly addressed religious congregations and gatherings in India. Holding that relief under Article 226 is equitable, the Court declined to extend it in the face of what it characterised as a “blatant, bald denial.”
Background
The Petitioner is an American citizen who was OCI cardholder since 2015. He visits India primarily to care for his ailing 92-year-old mother and visiting his family relatives. The petitioner had spent a significant part of his early life in India including his schooling from Ooty, Tamil Nadu.
The petitioner was issued a show cause notice by the respondents alleging that he has been carrying out missionary activities and religious conversions without requisite special permission, thus misusing his OCI status. It was also alleged that he was a missionary attached to an organisation by the name of Laymen’s Evangelical Fellowship International (LEFI). Although, he denied the allegations, Foreigners Regional Registration Officer-cum-Civil Authority, Bureau of Immigration cancelled his OCI registration under Sections 7-D(da) and 7-D(e), Act of 1955.
Aggrieved by the same, he had filed the present writ petition wherein he sought restoration of his OCI registration.
Also Read: Bombay HC seeks Union’s reply on Imran Khan’s Leave India Notice | SCC Times
Contentions
Petitioner’s Contentions
The petitioner denied violating any law governing OCI cardholders and stated that he visited India only to meet his ailing mother, relatives, and friends. He denied undertaking missionary activities, engaging in or promoting religious conversions, or holding any office in LEFI. He also disputed the description of the organisation as a “cult.”
According to the petitioner, the authorities had failed to identify specific dates, places, acts of conversion, persons allegedly converted, or evidence showing that he had compelled or procured any conversion. He argued that the requirement of prior permission under Notification, did not dispense with the authorities’ obligation to establish that he had actually undertaken missionary activities in India. He further relied on a direction requiring him to obtain permission on or before 3 February 2025 as supporting his contention that he had not committed a violation.
The petitioner also contended that the cancellation violated the principles of natural justice because the materials relied upon by the authorities, subsequently produced before the Court, had not been supplied to him to enable an effective response. Relying on Ashok Swain v. Union of India, (2025) 3 HCC (Del) 686, he argued that the opportunity of hearing required under Section 7-D, Act of 1955 must be real and effective, with disclosure of the supporting documents and identification of specific incidents.
Respondents’ Contentions
The respondents contended that the petitioner was a missionary associated with LEFI and had repeatedly undertaken missionary activities in India without special permission. They produced internet materials, advertisements, and complaints concerning his religious meetings. These included a poster with his photograph titled “Good News for All”, advertising his speeches at LEF Church in Tenali, Andhra Pradesh, from 15 January 2017 to 17 January 2017; materials concerning meetings held in Andhra Pradesh from 14 January 2018 to 16 January 2018; and materials relating to meetings at LEF Grounds, Stuartpuram, from 15 January 2019 to 20 January 2019. They also relied on LEFI Sunday service messages describing him as leading missionaries and Christian workers worldwide and participating in revival ministries, services, and retreats. On this basis, the respondents argued that he had violated the applicable legal requirements and was not entitled to restoration of his OCI registration.
Court’s Analysis
The Court held that the petitioner had been earlier granted OCI registration rightly as per the provisions of Section 7-A, Act of 1955. Section 7-B, Act of 1955 deals with powers of Central Government to grant rights upon OCI cardholders and Section 7-D, Act of 1955 deals with cancellation of registration upon violation of provisions of the Act or of any other law for time being in force.
The Court explained that the Notification, issued under Section 7-B, required special permission for missionary, public, mountaineering, or journalistic activities. Undertaking these activities without permission violated Section 7-B and attracted cancellation under Section 7-D(da), Act of 1955. It considered preaching and activities intended to spread the word of “God” as missionary activities and clarified that the permission requirement was not confined to activities resulting in religious conversion. Since the petitioner had not obtained the necessary permission, the Court found the cancellation justified.
On the objection relating to natural justice, the Court acknowledged the principle laid down in Ashok Swain. Nevertheless, it held that the principles of natural justice are not a straitjacket formula, and their application depends on the facts of each case. The Court distinguished a specific denial of particular incidents from the petitioner’s wholesale denial of any missionary activity in India. It found substantial material showing that the petitioner had repeatedly addressed congregations and religious gatherings in Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, with advertisements inviting public participation. The Court declined to regard those materials as fabricated or concocted and characterised his assertion that he visited India only for family purposes as, “on its face”, a lie. Emphasising that relief under Article 226 was equitable, it held that his sweeping denial disentitled him to such relief and declined to require a further detailed opportunity to respond.
Also Read: Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2026: OCI Registration | SCC Times
Decision
In light of the above analysis, the Court held that held that the relief sought in the petition could not be granted. Accordingly, while dismissing the writ petition, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to apply for a regular visa to visit his mother. It further clarified that the petitioner could undertake meetings and religious activities in India only after obtaining the requisite official permission.
[John Daniel v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine Mad 11046, decided on 26-10-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: R. Shanmuga Sundaram, Senior Counsel; A.G. Shakeenaa, R. Vinayaga Vishnu, Advocates.
For the Respondents: S. Padma, Senior Panel Counsel.
