Picture used for illustration goal solely. Madras Excessive Courtroom performed a key function within the collection of the boys’s silver-medal profitable workforce.
| Picture Credit score: AFP
“Congrats to the Indian Males’s Bridge Crew for his or her distinctive efficiency and clinching the Silver Medal on the Asian Video games. Raju Tolani, Ajay Prabhakar Khare, Sumit Mukherjee, Rajeshwar Tiwari, Jaggy Shivdasani and Sandeep Thakral have proven exceptional brilliance and dedication,” Prime Minister Narendra Modi tweeted on October 6. However what many could not know is the function performed by the Madras Excessive Courtroom within the collection of that medal-winning workforce.
It was a Division Bench of Justices D. Krishnakumar and P.B. Balaji which had, on August 7, dismissed a writ enchantment filed by G. Venkatesh, an Abroad Citizen of India (OCI), looking for a course to the Bridge Federation of India (BFI) to let him symbolize it in worldwide tournaments. The judges had concurred with senior counsel Srinath Sridevan, representing BFI, that solely Indian residents may very well be allowed to symbolize the nation in worldwide tournaments.
‘Wish to symbolize BFI, not India’
Based on the appellant, he was born and educated in India earlier than he secured U.S. citizenship in 1996. Thereafter, he registered himself as an OCI when it comes to Part 7A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Since clause 1 of a notification issued on March 4, 2021 offers for the grant of a a number of entry lifelong visa to OCI cardholders for visiting India “for any goal”, Mr. Venkatesh claimed that such functions would additionally embrace the proper to symbolize BFI in worldwide tournaments.
The petitioner additionally contended that his request was solely to symbolize the BFI in worldwide tournaments and never the nation of India as such. He additional acknowledged that he doesn’t intend to “stroll below the flag of India” in any worldwide match; in 2009, the Centre had introduced in a rule that solely Indian residents alone can be entitled to take action. Mr. Venkatesh argued that there was completely no authorized obstacle to let him symbolize BFI in worldwide occasions.
‘Residents solely’
Disagreeing along with his contentions, the judges wrote: “The clause stating that an OCI is permitted to enter India ‘for any goal’ can’t be prolonged and interpreted in such a way to incorporate allowing an OCI cardholder to take part in worldwide Bridge occasions. Entry into the nation is one facet and his entitlement or eligibility to take part in worldwide occasions representing the primary Respondent [BFI] or India is totally one other facet.”
Authoring the decision for the Bench, Justice Balaji additionally mentioned: “As rightly identified by realized senior counsel Srinath Sridevan, the primary respondent is affiliated to the Central authorities and is ruled by the Nationwide Sports activities Growth Code of India, 2011. When a coverage resolution is taken by the Centre that solely Indians can be permitted to symbolize the nation in worldwide sports activities occasions, the courts can’t to be known as upon to intrude with such selections of the State.”
The decide went on to state: ‘The round dated March 12, 2009 clearly establishes… the coverage resolution taken by the federal government to not allow overseas nationals of Indian origin. It’s pertinent to state that, what the Central authorities meant by ‘be a part of the nationwide workforce and stroll below the Indian flag’ is barely representing India and never the literal sense of carrying the Indian flag or Indian banner on the worldwide occasions involved.”
Not the identical rights
Although the appellant relied upon a 2010 judgement of the Punjab and Haryana Excessive Courtroom which had permitted an OCI cardholder to symbolize India in worldwide sports activities tournaments, Justice Balaji mentioned that the details of that case had been utterly completely different since that litigant had acquired U.S. citizenship by beginning. He had travelled to India on the age of 1 and undergone his whole schooling right here. His father was additionally serving within the Punjab police division.
In distinction, Mr. Venkatesh had acquired U.S. citizenship voluntarily, with the intention of creating his residence within the nation of his residence. Due to this fact, such an individual might solely benefit from the rights which had been made accessible by the Centre for OCI cardholders and couldn’t search rights equal to the Indian residents, the Bench concluded.