How govt revoked OCI card of US journalist Raphael Satter for ‘anti-India bias'
In a case that pits the sovereignty of the Indian state against global norms of press freedom, the Union government has firmly defended its decision to revoke the Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card of US-based journalist Raphael Satter.In an affidavit filed before the Delhi High Court last week, the ministry of home affairs (MHA) claimed the move was based on intelligence inputs that flagged Satter for allegedly 'maliciously creating adverse and biased opinions against Indian institutions' in the global arena through his reporting. A discreet Look Out Circular (LOC) had also been issued against him, the government disclosed.advertisementThe government claimed that before initiating cancellation of OCI proceedings, the MHA had consulted security agencies and the ministry of external affairs (MEA), and also examined the activities of Satter in the light of reports received from security agencies.The affidavit, filed by I.G. Muthuraja, director in the Foreigners Division of the MHA on May 24, further asserted India's sovereign right to deny entry to any foreign national deemed undesirable, regardless of visa status. 'Entry into a country's territory is not a matter of right,' the government stated, reinforcing its position that holding an OCI card does not guarantee unrestricted access.
The affidavit stated it was brought to the notice of the MHA through security agencies that Satter had attended the Nullcon Conference in Goa on September 10, 2022. The focus of the conference was to showcase the next generation of offensive and defensive security technology. Without necessary permission, he attended the conference and conducted journalistic activities, thus violating the provision of Para (1) (1) of the MHA's notification S.O. 1050 (E) dated March 4, 2021.advertisement'It is germane to mention here that OCI cardholders or other foreigners visiting India are supposed to adhere to the laws of the country, i.e. the activities which are prohibited for them under the category of VISA or OCI guidelines,' the government affidavit stated, adding that an OCI cardholder is a foreigner and that the OCI card is a life-long visa issued to such a foreigner. Every country has a sovereign right to refuse entry into its territory to any individual whom it may consider undesirable, and informing about the same inasmuch as entry into any country's territory is not a matter of right, even if the person holds a valid visa.It was also informed that Indian citizens are guaranteed the Fundamental Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression and Fundamental Right to Free Movement under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. However, foreigners or citizens of other countries are not entitled to such rights. Since OCI cardholders are foreigners and citizens of another country, they cannot claim Right to Free Speech/Movement and protest under Article 19 of the Constitution.It was pointed out that the legal position on this aspect is not uniform in all countries, but so far, the law which operates in India is concerned, the executive government has an unrestricted right to expel a foreigner. So far as the right to be heard is concerned, there cannot be any hard and fast rule about the manner in which a person concerned has to be given an opportunity to place his case and it is not claimed that if the authority concerned had served a notice before passing the impugned order, the petitioners could have produced some relevant material in support of their claim of acquisition of citizenship, which they failed to do in the absence of a notice.advertisementIt was claimed that before initiating cancellation of OCI proceedings, the MHA had consulted security agencies and MEA and also examined the activities of Satter in view of reports received from security agencies, MEA and provisions under Sections 7D (da) and 7D (e) of The Citizenship Act, 1955, wherein the OCI card of the petitioner was found liable to be cancelled. Therefore, on June 12, 2023, the MHA served a 'notice' to the petitioner through the Indian High Commission in Washington DC to show cause as to why his OCI Card may not be cancelled.It is submitted that the reports received from security agencies are 'Secret' in nature, therefore, it cannot be disclosed to the petitioner.advertisementFurther, (7D) The Central Government may, by order, cancel the registration granted under sub-section (1) of section 7A, if it is satisfied that:(da) The Overseas Citizen of India cardholder has violated any of the provisions of this Act or provisions of any other law for time being in force as may be specified by the central government in the notification published.(e) it is necessary so to do in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of India, friendly relations of India with any foreign country, or in the interests of the general public.The government maintained that though Satter made repeated representations claiming that he did not carry any journalistic activities, he has not submitted anything which proves that he has not done any journalistic activities and was also unable to submit his whereabouts and activities during his visit to India.'It has been reported by security agencies that Raphael Satter has been noted for acts of maliciously creating adverse and biased opinion against Indian institutions in the international arena through his journalistic activities, and a discreet LOC was opened against him,' the government informed the Delhi High Court.advertisementThe high court was informed that in the personal hearing, Satter, through his representatives, claimed that after obtaining his OCI Card, he had visited India only once and had not engaged in any journalistic activities, such as interviews, news events, or taken any photos, nor published any articles during his visit to India. In addition, Satter has cited eight court judgments to support his argument that detailed reasons for the cancellation of an OCI Card need to be furnished when exercising powers under Section 7D of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Further, he stated that no proof has been submitted (i) on the allegation of conducting journalistic activities without special permission (ii) on the allegation of maliciously creating adverse and biased opinion against Indian institutions in the international arena.The government has made it clear that the OCI card is a lifelong visa granted to a foreign national of Indian origin or their relatives. The grant of visa is plenary sovereign function of the central government. 'The foreign national cannot claim services as a matter of right as per their convenience. Visa service is meant only for those foreign nationals who intent to arrive/ stay/ depart in/ from India legally and follow Indian laws and rules.'advertisementSubscribe to India Today Magazine
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
41 minutes ago
- Time of India
Pakistan will go to war if India denies water under IWT, says Bilawal Bhutto
Pakistan's former foreign minister Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari on Monday said his country will go to war if India denies Islamabad its fair share of water under the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT). India put in abeyance the 1960 agreement soon after the April 22 Pahalgam terrorist attack that killed 26 people. Home Minister Amit Shah last week announced to never restore the historic accord. Bilawal's comments came two days after Pakistan's Foreign Ministry criticised Shah's "brazen disregard" for international agreements. Bilawal, in a speech in parliament, rejected the Indian decision to suspend the agreement and threatened to get Pakistan's share of water. "India has two options: share water fairly, or we will deliver water to us from all six rivers," he said referring to the six rivers of the Indus basin. Live Events He said that the IWT was still in vogue as the agreement cannot be held in abeyance. "The attack on Sindhu (Indus River) and India's claim that the IWT has ended and it's in abeyance. Firstly, this is illegal, as the IWT is not in abeyance, it is binding on Pakistan and India, but the threat itself of stopping water is illegal according to the UN charter," he said. Bilawal, who is head of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), also threatened that if India decides to follow through on the threat, "we will have to wage war again". The former foreign minister also highlighted the importance of talks and cooperation, especially in counterterrorism efforts. "If India and Pakistan refuse to talk, and if there is no coordination on terrorism, then violence will only intensify in both countries," he said. Bilawal also accused India of "weaponising terrorism for political purposes". He claimed that during his diplomatic visits to the UK and European nations as foreign minister, it was evident that India had lobbied hard to reverse Pakistan's progress on the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) front. "At a time when Pakistan had successfully moved from the FATF grey list to the white list, India made every effort to drag us back to the grey list using false narratives and diplomatic pressure," he claimed. Bilawal also said that Pakistan succeeded in raising the issue of Kashmir on the world stage and President Donald Trump had spoken in favour of mediation on Kashmir. Apart from immediate steps such as putting the IWT in abeyance and stopping all trade with Pakistan, India launched Operation Sindoor on May 7, targeting terrorist infrastructure in territories controlled by Pakistan in response to the Pahalgam terror attack. The strikes triggered four days of intense clashes that ended with an understanding on stopping the military actions on May 10.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Remembering Emergency: When India banned Coke and brewed nationalism in a bottle called Double Seven
HighlightsIn 1977, following the end of the Emergency and the fall of nearly three decades of Congress rule, the newly elected Janata Party government launched Double Seven, India's first government-backed cola, as a symbol of economic self-reliance and political change. The introduction of Double Seven was spearheaded by George Fernandes, the then Industry Minister, who expelled Coca-Cola from India due to its refusal to comply with local equity regulations, leading to the development of the indigenous beverage by Modern Food Industries. Despite a grand launch and the tagline 'The Taste that Tingles', Double Seven failed to capture the public's interest, facing stiff competition from established brands, and ultimately faded from the market after Indira Gandhi returned to power in 1980. In the summer of 1977, just after the 21-month Emergency ended and India turned the page on nearly three decades of uninterrupted Congress rule, a new political force was not the only thing bubbling to the surface. The newly elected Janata Party government had shown the door to Coca-Cola and unveiled its own fizzy response -- Double Seven. The country's first "sarkari cola" was launched as a symbol of economic self-reliance and political change. Named after the landmark year that brought the Morarji Desai-led Janata coalition to power, Double Seven was more than a beverage; it was a political statement in a bottle. The indigenous cola had an elaborate launch at the annual trade fair at Pragati Maidan. The Double Seven cola , popularly known as "Satattar" (77 in Hindi) was manufactured and marketed by the makers of Modern breads - Modern Food Industries - a government-owned company. Interestingly, then MP H V Kamath was also awarded a cash prize for coming up with the name "77". Although "77" was not ready for sale until 1978, the name was chosen because 1977 was the year of big changes in India -- such as the end of the Indira Gandhi government and Coca-Cola. At the helm of affairs in the cola episode was then Industry Minister George Fernandes, who decided to throw Coke as well as IBM out of India over their refusal to follow the provisions of what was then the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. Rahul Ramagundam wrote in Fernandes' biography "Life and Times of George Fernandes" that the provision stipulated that foreign companies should dilute their equity stake in their Indian associates to 60 per cent. Fernandes wanted Coca-Cola Company to not just transfer 60 per cent of the shares of its Indian firm but also the formula for its concentrate to Indian shareholders. The company said it was agreeable to transferring a majority of the shares but not the formula, which it contended was a trade secret. The company exited the Indian market as the government denied a licence to import the Coke concentrate. Fernandes then introduced the indigenous drink "77". The government asked the Central Food Technological Research Institute (CFTRI) in Mysuru to develop the formula. Sold with the tagline "The Taste that Tingles", the cola did not strike the same chord with the public as Coca-Cola, amid tough competition from brands like Campa Cola, Thums Up, and Duke. "I remember the launch of Double Seven at the annual trade fair at Pragati Maidan, a proud gift from the Janata Party, an indigenous drink supposedly superior than Coca-Cola and a stark reminder of Indira Gandhi's humiliating defeat in the recent general elections," author Sunil Lala says in his book "American Khichdi", published in 2009. Tata McGraw Hill's book "Advertising Management: Concepts and Cases" also mentions Double Seven as an example of government branding and "swadeshi" marketing gone awry. Hill cited the launch of Double Seven as a business school case study in government-backed branding, highlighting the campaign's missteps and beverage-market context of the late 1970s. The end of Double Seven, not so surprisingly, coincided with Indira Gandhi reclaiming power in 1980. Coca-Cola made a comeback in October 1993, post-liberalisation of the Indian market by the P V Narasimha Rao government and has maintained a strong presence ever since. Congress leader Shashi Tharoor has also referred to the episode in his book "India: From Midnight to the Millennium and Beyond". "Heedless to the signal these exits sent to the world - whose brief hopes that a change of government might have led to a more welcoming investment climate were poured down the same drain as the Coke - the Janata ministers chose to celebrate the departures of these multinationals as a further triumph for socialism and anti-imperialistic self-reliance," Tharoor wrote in the book. The Emergency was imposed 50 years ago on June 25, 1975, by the then prime minister Indira Gandhi. Triggered by political unrest and a court verdict invalidating Gandhi's election, the Emergency suspended civil liberties, censored the press and saw mass arrests of opposition leaders.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
'It was a ruse': Inside Trump's war room; how 'Operation Midnight Hammer' against Iran was planned
US President Donald Trump in The Situation Room, June 21, 2025 (Pic credit: White House) In a move that marks a dramatic escalation in US-Iran tensions, American President Donald Trump ordered a high-precision military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities on Saturday, authorising the first major US military action on Iranian soil since the fall of the American-backed Shah in 1979. The operation, carried out by a small fleet of US B-2 stealth bombers, was planned under intense secrecy and executed just hours after Trump returned from his New Jersey golf club to the White House. In classic Trump fashion, he announced the strike minutes after it concluded, "Congratulations to our great American Warriors. There is not another military in the World that could have done this. NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!. " Photo: Inside Trump's war room - a secretive, surgical attack The White House later released tightly controlled photos from the classified Situation Room, showing Trump, wearing his signature red MAGA hat, flanked by his war cabinet. CIA director John Ratcliffe, defense secretary Pete Hegseth, and White House chief of staff Susie Wiles were present, though national intelligence director Tulsi Gabbard was conspicuously missing, amid rumours of internal friction. US President Donald Trump in The Situation Room, June 21, 2025 (Pic credit: White House) Photos blurred key documents on the table, echoing the Obama-era images of the 2011 Bin Laden raid. But where Obama's photos suggested deliberation and calm, Trump's leaned into theatrics— part documentation, part spectacle, all calculated for impact. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like What She Did Mid-Air Left Passengers Speechless medalmerit Learn More Undo US President Donald Trump in The Situation Room, June 21, 2025 (Pic credit: White House) A strike months in the making, publicly denied until the last hour Though Trump projected uncertainty all week, publicly musing on whether he might "take two weeks" to decide, the internal gears of war were already in motion. By Thursday, he had approved detailed attack plans. By early Saturday morning, seven B-2s were already airborne. "It was a ruse," a senior administration official admitted, according to The Washington Post. Only a tight circle of aides were read in: VP JD Vance, CIA chief Ratcliffe, defense secretary Hegseth, national security envoy Steve Witkoff, and secretary of state Marco Rubio, among others. Some in the broader White House apparatus were in the dark until the bombs had already fallen. The final decision, it seems, was not so much a moment as a mood. Trump's two-week bluff? Trump's claim that he might take "two weeks" to decide on striking Iran was a calculated deception, designed to throw Tehran off balance. Behind the scenes, however, the decision had already been made, and stealth bombers were preparing for takeoff. A senior administration official later admitted the delayed talk was "our attempt to throw the Iranians off guard," though there was 'some truth' to it, according to The Washington Post. The public indecision masked a fast-moving, tightly held operation that unfolded just 36 hours later. Iran's red line: Nuclear enrichment At the heart of the conflict: Iran's refusal to halt its nuclear fuel enrichment program, an issue that has vexed American presidents for decades. In Geneva last week, European diplomats met with Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi, but the talks stalled. Tehran wouldn't budge unless the bombing stopped. Trump, in turn, wouldn't stop unless Iran surrendered its nuclear future. This time, the ultimatum came with an unmistakable threat: Trump warned Tehran to "immediately evacuate" and told Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei that "he could be next." Despite the bombast, Trump never spoke to Iranian officials directly. Instead, Witkoff held backchannel negotiations. Trump's demand: zero enrichment, full dismantlement. Iran's answer: no. Behind the scenes: Friction, fundraisers, and the MAGA war room While B-2s sped across the Atlantic, Trump wasn't in a bunker, he was at a fundraiser. Vice President JD Vance was flying back from California. The air of normalcy masked the imminent shockwave. But inside the Situation Room, the president's loyal cadre assembled. Among them: social media gatekeeper Dan Scavino, press secretary Karoline Leavitt, and even AG Pam Bondi, who hadn't been involved in the planning but was brought in at the eleventh hour. Top US officials in The Situation Room, June 21, 2025 (Pic credit: White House) Outside the government, Trump's populist whisperers, Steve Bannon, Charlie Kirk, and Jack Posobiec, were kept in the loop to shore up political backing. The strike wasn't just a military message, it was a campaign moment in the making. "He was listening to people across the ideological perspective" of his political base, The Washington Post quoted the senior administration official. "Ultimately, the president felt this is a decision the base should support and get behind, because ultimately, he's preventing a conflict that very well could have happened if the supreme leader instructed Iran to create the nuclear weapon," he added. Global fallout and strategic calculations The strike was timed precisely, coming just days after Israel launched its own offensive against Iran on June 13. By midweek, Israeli air dominance helped tilt US military calculations toward optimism. Ret. Lt. Gen. Charlie "Tuna" Moore put it bluntly: "Although we could have executed our operation unilaterally, without a doubt it was beneficial to the United States to have that as the predicate." Even VP Vance, who had privately raised concerns, ultimately signed off. His Iraq War experience made him cautious, but not obstructionist. "He wanted the tires kicked," one official said." Bunker Busters: The bomb that digs to destroy A calculated gamble In the end, Trump's decision marked a sharp pivot from decades of American hesitation. Every president since Carter has baulked at the idea of a full strike on Iranian territory. Trump just did it. Whether it stabilises or further inflames the region remains to be seen. Rubio has begun briefing European allies post-strike. Iran, for now, is unlikely to let this go unanswered. In Sunday interviews, Vance admitted no one truly knew when Trump made the call, not even him. "I don't know that any of us knew exactly when the president made the decision except for the president himself," he said on "Meet the Press."
