Photo used for representation purpose only. Madras High Court played a key role in the selection of the men’s silver-medal winning team.
| Photo Credit: AFP
“Congrats to the Indian Men’s Bridge Team for their exceptional performance and clinching the Silver Medal at the Asian Games. Raju Tolani, Ajay Prabhakar Khare, Sumit Mukherjee, Rajeshwar Tiwari, Jaggy Shivdasani and Sandeep Thakral have shown remarkable brilliance and dedication,” Prime Minister Narendra Modi tweeted on October 6. But what many may not know is the role played by the Madras High Court in the selection of that medal-winning team.
It was a Division Bench of Justices D. Krishnakumar and P.B. Balaji which had, on August 7, dismissed a writ appeal filed by G. Venkatesh, an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI), seeking a direction to the Bridge Federation of India (BFI) to let him represent it in international tournaments. The judges had concurred with senior counsel Srinath Sridevan, representing BFI, that only Indian citizens could be allowed to represent the country in international tournaments.
‘Want to represent BFI, not India’
According to the appellant, he was born and educated in India before he secured U.S. citizenship in 1996. Thereafter, he registered himself as an OCI in terms of Section 7A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Since clause 1 of a notification issued on March 4, 2021 provides for the grant of a multiple entry lifelong visa to OCI cardholders for visiting India “for any purpose”, Mr. Venkatesh claimed that such purposes would also include the right to represent BFI in international tournaments.
The petitioner also contended that his request was only to represent the BFI in international tournaments and not the nation of India as such. He further stated that he does not intend to “walk under the flag of India” in any international tournament; in 2009, the Centre had brought in a rule that only Indian citizens alone would be entitled to do so. Mr. Venkatesh argued that there was absolutely no legal impediment to let him represent BFI in international events.
‘Citizens only’
Disagreeing with his contentions, the judges wrote: “The clause stating that an OCI is permitted to enter India ‘for any purpose’ cannot be extended and interpreted in such a manner to include permitting an OCI cardholder to participate in international Bridge events. Entry into the country is one aspect and his entitlement or eligibility to participate in international events representing the first Respondent [BFI] or India is entirely another aspect.”
Authoring the verdict for the Bench, Justice Balaji also said: “As rightly pointed out by learned senior counsel Srinath Sridevan, the first respondent is affiliated to the Central government and is governed by the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011. When a policy decision is taken by the Centre that only Indians would be permitted to represent the country in international sports events, the courts cannot to be called upon to interfere with such decisions of the State.”
The judge went on to state: ‘The circular dated March 12, 2009 clearly establishes… the policy decision taken by the government to not permit foreign nationals of Indian origin. It is pertinent to state that, what the Central government meant by ‘be part of the national team and walk under the Indian flag’ is only representing India and not the literal sense of carrying the Indian flag or Indian banner at the international events concerned.”
Not the same rights
Though the appellant relied upon a 2010 judgement of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had permitted an OCI cardholder to represent India in international sports tournaments, Justice Balaji said that the facts of that case were completely different since that litigant had acquired U.S. citizenship by birth. He had travelled to India at the age of one and undergone his entire education here. His father was also serving in the Punjab police department.
In contrast, Mr. Venkatesh had acquired U.S. citizenship voluntarily, with the intention of making his home in the country of his residence. Therefore, such a person could only enjoy the rights which had been made available by the Centre for OCI cardholders and could not seek rights equal to the Indian citizens, the Bench concluded.