Delhi High Court: Petitioner was aggrieved by the denial, to an Overseas Citizen of India (‘OCI’), of the chance of participating in the International Mathematical Olympiads on behalf of India, merely because she was an OCI. C. Hari Shankar, J.*, dismissed the petition and held that the decision of not allowing OCIs to participate in the International Maths Olympiad was a policy decision and could not be said to be so arbitrary as to justify judicial interference.
Petitioner, a citizen of US and having a US passport, wanted to participate in Asian Pacific Mathematical Olympiad (‘APMO’), European Girls’ Mathematical Olympiad (‘EGMO’) and International Mathematical Olympiad (‘IMO’) which are scheduled to be held from 11-4-2024 to 17-4-2024. Petitioner was aggrieved by the notice which was published on the website of the Homi Bhabha Centre for Science and Education (‘HBCSE’), which conducted the preliminary rounds of selection, under the aegis of the Department of Atomic Energy, to decide on the candidates to be sent to represent India in international Maths Olympiads. The said notice stated that “as per the orders of the Madras High Court, students with OCI status were not eligible for selection to the Indian team in IMO, EGMO, and APMO”.
The Court opined that at the time when petitioner undertook the Indian Olympiad Qualifier in Mathematics, 2023 (‘IOQM-2023’), she was expected and meant to be aware of the eligibility criteria applicable, which clearly stated that while OCI students could undertake all prior stages including the International Mathematical Olympiad Training Camp (‘IMOTC’) and the European Girls’ Mathematical Olympiad Training Camp (‘EGMOTC’), they would not be eligible to attempt the ultimate final Olympiad. It was in full knowledge of this handicap that petitioner undertook the examination and participated in the selection process.
The Court noted that the decision of the Madras High Court to which Clause 2.2 of the Eligibility Conditions of the IOQM made reference was Raghuram v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 1100 (‘Raghuram Case’). The Court noted that in Raghuram Case (supra), it was held that an OCI candidate was entitled to participate in all rounds of the selection process leading up to the ultimate International Mathematical Olympiads, insofar as actual participation in the Olympiads was concerned, the principle laid down in G. Venkatesh v. Bridge Federation of India, 2015 SCC OnLine Mad 10335 (‘G. Venkatesh Case’) was held to apply. In G. Venkatesh Case (supra), the Madras High Court observed that in Karm Kumar v. Union of India, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2579, this Court had concluded that “an OCI or a person of Indian origin could not claim any right to represent India in any international events”.
The Court observed that in G. Venkatesh Case (supra), the Madras High Court did not restrict its observation to the limited sphere of the right to participate in the bridge tournament with which it was concerned but the observations of the Madras High Court generally examined the right of OCIs to participate in international events.
The Court opined that “there was a fundamental and intelligible differentia between petitioner and other persons who reside in India and were entitled to undertake the Maths Olympiad. Petitioner was not an Indian citizen. This by itself constituted an intelligible differentia between petitioner and citizens of this country who were entitled to undertake the Maths Olympiad. Students who attempt an international Olympiad represent the country. They represent its intellectual wealth. Success in the Olympiad augments the country’s intellectual reputation and represents the country’s intellectual strength in the global firmament. There was, therefore, an integral inter-connect between the requirement of the student being a citizen of this country, and the right to participate in the Olympiad”.
The Court also opined that there could be no difference between petitioner and any other foreign citizen. If petitioner was to be allowed to undertake the Maths Olympiad, every foreign citizen, who was residing in India for a considerable period of time, would be entitled to the same benefit. There was, therefore, a justifiable reason for not permitting non-citizens to represent India in International Maths Olympiad, and the decision could not, therefore, be treated as either arbitrary or taken without proper application of mind.
The Court further opined that the decision as to who should be permitted to attempt the Olympiad was a policy decision. Participation in international Maths Olympiads was handled by the Department of Atomic Energy, which had outsourced the task to the Homi Bhabha Centre for Science and Education. The decision was, therefore, one taken at the executive and governmental level. Administrative and executive decisions dealing with academic matters ought not, ordinarily, to constitute subjects of judicial interference unless they were so arbitrary that no court could in its right mind tolerate the decision.
The Court dismissed the petition and held that the decision of not allowing OCIs to participate in the International Maths Olympiad could not be said to be so arbitrary as to justify judicial interference.
[Kenisha Agrawal v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1762, decided on 12-3-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice C. Hari Shankar
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Anindita Mitra, Advocate
For the Respondents: Satya Ranjan Swain, Vedansh Anand, Kautilya Birat, Advocates
