LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/union-of-india-vs-bahareh-bakshi-20240822/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Union of India vs Bahareh Bakshi

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
22 August 2024
Case No.
Civil Appeal No(S).4887-4888/2024
Result
Allowed
Bench
Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, Sarasa Venkatanarayana Bhatti
Citation
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 820 : 2024 INSC 646
Acts & Sections
Citizenship Act, 1955 Visa Manual, 2021 CrPC
Supreme Court Reports [2024] 8 S.C.R. 820 : 2024 INSC 646
Issue for consideration
Issue arose as regards to the presence of the estranged husband, if mandatory to process an application by the wife-foreign spouse of a citizen of India for overseas Citizen of India Card, u/s.7-A of the Citizenship Act, 1955.
Headnote

Citizenship Act,1955 – s.7A(1) – Registration of Overseas Citizen of India Cardholder – Application for Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) Card by wife-foreign spouse of a citizen of India – Presence of the estranged husband, if mandatory to process the application u/s.7A:

Held: Presence of the spouse of the applicant either physically or through the virtual mode is mandatory for effective consideration of the application for an OCI Card – Central Government is empowered to register the foreign spouse of a citizen of India as an OCI holder subject to such conditions, restrictions and manner as may be prescribed – Prior security clearance’ by the competent authority for eligibility is also required – Act clearly allows for supplementary procedures, such as an personal interview of the foreign applicant and his/her spouse separately as specified in the Visa Manual as well as the Checklist – In the absence of any challenge to the visa manual or the checklist, and ignoring the procedure in place, the High Court erred in granting the relief of dispensing with the requirement of physical/virtual presence of the spouse as also was unjustified in holding that mandating the physical presence of the husband is arbitrary – Having considered the process for verifying the genuineness, the direction issued in the impugned judgment to dispense with the presence of the applicant’s spouse, has no legal basis – Moreover, apart from the physical/virtual presence of the spouse other conditions are also to be satisfied by an applicant as is provided under the Act, the checklist and the Visa Manual for which even a declaration by the husband may be necessary – Impugned judgments of the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court unsustainable and set aside. [Paras 14-18]

Keywords: Overseas Citizen of India · OCI holder · Application for OCI Card · Prior security clearance · Checklist issued for verification of applications seeking OCI category card · Presence of couple · Presence of the estranged husband · Personal interview · Genuineness of the marital status · Supplementary procedures · Interview · Visa Manual as well as Checklist · Dispensing with the requirement of physical/virtual presence of the spouse · Special circumstance

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Judgment 1. Heard Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellant – Union of India. Also heard Mr. Ankur Mahindro, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The consideration to be made in this matter is whether the presence of the estranged husband is mandatory to process an application for Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) Card, under Section 7-A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. The respondent had filed the WP(C) No.10807/2020 in the High Court of Delhi for dispensing with the presence of the husband of the respondent. The learned Single Judge dispen
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →