Delhi High Court said India cannot be maligned on global platforms while reviewing the Centre’s sealed report on cancellation of UK-based academic Amrit Wilson’s Overseas Citizen of India card. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav cited inputs alleging anti-India activities.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court stated that it cannot permit the country to be disparaged on international platforms.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav made this comment after reviewing a sealed report from the Central government, which outlined the reasons for the cancellation of the Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card held by UK-based academic Amrit Wilson.
The Court observed that intelligence reports suggested Wilson was involved in activities against India.
Justice Kaurav remarked,
“We should not be such a tolerant State that we allow our own country to be criticised… maligned at international platform. There are some IB [Intelligence Bureau] reports against you. There are not only two tweets; there are allegations that you participated in anti-India activities. There are IB reports, I have seen it,”
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Slams Govt: “OCI Card Can’t Be Cancelled Without Hearing”
Wilson, an 82-year-old British-Indian writer and journalist, had her OCI card revoked in 2023 due to accusations of involvement in “multiple anti-India activities” and “detrimental propaganda.”
Challenging this decision, she argued in the Delhi High Court that the cancellation was illegal, arbitrary, and lacked proper consideration. The Court had issued a notice to the government regarding her plea in May 2023.
On that day, Senior Advocate Trideep Pais represented Wilson and contended that the show-cause notice issued for the cancellation of her OCI card lacked specific details. He pointed out that while the government initially referenced one of her tweets and articles concerning the farmers’ protest and Kashmir, they were not the basis for the show-cause notice.
Pais asserted that none of Wilson’s work could be deemed anti-India. The Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC), Nidhi Raman, represented the government and stated that while public domain materials were shared with Wilson, there were also intelligence inputs, which were submitted to the Court in a sealed envelope.
Raman emphasized that the issue pertains to the integrity and sovereignty of India. Pais noted that the practice of submitting sealed cover reports has been criticized by the Supreme Court.
After reviewing the sealed report, the Bench acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations against Wilson and reiterated that the country cannot be subjected to criticism on international platforms.
The Court then instructed both Wilson and the government to file their submissions in the case, with the next hearing set for August 27.