Court Grants Centre Two More Weeks to Respond to Academician Swain's Plea Against Blacklisting Order

The Delhi High Court's decision to grant the Centre additional time to respond to academician Ashok Swain's plea highlights the ongoing legal battle surrounding his alleged blacklisting from India. Swain, a Swedish national and professor at Uppsala University, is challenging an order that he claims prevents him from entering the country, despite holding an Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) card.

“

On request of respondent's counsel, two weeks further time to file reply is granted.

Swain asserts that the blacklisting is based on undisclosed allegations of 'anti-India writing and inflammatory speeches.' He argues that the lack of transparency and due process violates his fundamental rights, including those guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. His petition points out that the grounds for the alleged blacklisting have never been clearly communicated to him, nor have they been subject to proper legal scrutiny.

“

The Embassy of India to Sweden and Latvia cancelled Swain's OCI Card under the Citizenship Act on February 8, 2024.

The Centre, represented by its counsel, requested further time to file a reply, which the court granted, scheduling the next hearing for July 23. This is not the first time the Centre's actions against Swain have faced judicial review. The High Court had previously twice overturned decisions to cancel Swain's OCI card, indicating a pattern of administrative action that has been questioned by the judiciary.

“

He submitted that his aged mother, who lives in India was unwell, but he has not been able to visit her in the past several years.

Swain's case raises important questions about national security, freedom of expression, and the rights of OCI cardholders. His inability to visit his ailing mother in India due to the purported ban underscores the personal impact of such administrative orders. The continued legal proceedings reflect a tension between the government's perceived need to control entry into the country and the rights of individuals to natural justice and procedural fairness. The outcome of this case will be closely watched, particularly concerning the balance between state interests and individual liberties.

“

He alleged that the authorities' action was pursuant to an undisclosed blacklisting order, the content and legal basis of which have neither been communicated to him nor tested on the touchstone of procedural safeguards mandated under the Citizenship Act, principles of natural justice and constitutional protections under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.