The case of Dr. Radhika Thappeta v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1397/2020, has drawn significant attention due to its implications on the constitutional rights of Overseas Citizens of India (OCIs). The case revolves around the interpretation of Section 7D of the Citizenship Act, 19551. Under specific circumstances, such as if they show disapproval of the Constitution or in the interest of India’s sovereignty and integrity, this section gives the government the authority to remove an individual’s OCI status.
A petition challenging the legitimacy of Section 7D was submitted before the Supreme Court in April 2021 by a group of 80 OCIs, including Dr. Radhika Thappeta, in response to a notification issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) outlining the rights and obligations of OCIs. Despite the fact that the petitioners live and pay taxes in India, they contend that this interferes with their ability to openly file complaints with public officials.
The petitioners argue that Section 7D’s unrestricted discretion granted to the Government is arbitrary1. Additionally, they claim that the Right to Information Act of 2005 prohibits them from requesting information1. The union government has been given notice by the Supreme Court, which is made up of Justices A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian, and CJI S.A. Bobde, to address the issues raised by the OCIs.
The case has brought to light the varying interpretations of the rights of OCIs. While the government maintains that OCIs do not enjoy the same rights as Indian citizens1, the petitioners argue that their rights should be at par with those of Non-Residential Indians (NRIs). This case unfolds against a backdrop of growing discourse on citizenship, diaspora rights, and national identity within the global Indian community. It touches upon the delicate balance between embracing the diaspora’s contributions and maintaining a clear legal delineation of rights and privileges. As India continues to navigate its relationship with its vast overseas population, the legal principles established by this case could influence future policies and the legal framework governing diaspora relations.
The case of Dr. Radhika Thappeta v Union of India is not just about one individual’s appeal but about the interpretation of law and its impact on the fundamental rights of individuals. As the Supreme Court decides on this matter, it will set a precedent that will influence future cases and potentially the course of justice in India.
This case serves as a reminder of the delicate balance the judiciary must maintain between upholding the law and ensuring the protection of fundamental rights. It underscores the importance of continuous examination and interpretation of our laws to ensure they serve justice and uphold the rights of individuals.
Written By- Priyanshu Raj intern under legal vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature
0 Comments