OCI Cardholders Must Obtain Special Permission To Undertake Missionary Preaching In India: Madras High Court

The Court upheld the cancellation of an American citizen’s OCI registration after finding that he had conducted missionary activities without obtaining such permission.

The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging a September 4, 2026 order passed under Sections 7D(da) and 7D(e) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, cancelling the petitioner’s OCI registration and seeking its restoration.

A Bench of Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy observed: “While issuing S.O.1050(E) under Section 7B of the Act and granting the privilege of a multiple-entry lifelong visa for visiting India for any purpose, a provision has been made requiring special permission or a special permit from the competent authority, the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, or the Indian Mission concerned, to undertake any missionary, public, mountaineering, or journalistic activities. Thus, if the petitioner carries on missionary activities without permission, the same violates Section 7B of the Act, and the registration accordingly becomes liable to be cancelled under Section 7D(da) of the Act.”

The Court added: “If the petitioner preaches and undertakes activities to spread the word of ‘God’, such activities would fall within the meaning of missionary activity. Therefore, he ought to have obtained special permission in that regard. He has not obtained such permission. Therefore, considering the nature of the allegations made against the petitioner, the cancellation stands justified.”

Senior Counsel R. Shanmuga Sundaram appeared for the petitioner. Senior Panel Counsel Dr S. Padma appeared for the Union authorities.

Background

The petitioner, an American citizen whose parents were of Indian origin, was registered as an OCI cardholder in February 2015. He stated that he visited India primarily to meet his aged mother and other relatives and denied undertaking missionary activities or promoting religious conversions.

A show-cause notice issued in September 2025 alleged that the petitioner had misused his OCI card by preaching and delivering religious lectures without special permission. It further alleged that he had conducted prayers and missionary activities in parts of Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu.

The petitioner denied holding any position in the Laymen’s Evangelical Fellowship International and contended that the authorities had not identified the specific incidents, places, persons or evidence relied upon. He also argued that the material subsequently produced before the High Court had not been supplied to him, denying him an effective opportunity to answer the allegations.

The Union authorities relied upon posters, online material and information concerning religious meetings allegedly addressed by the petitioner between 2017 and 2019. They submitted that the material showed his association with missionary work and his participation in religious gatherings in India.

Court’s Observations

OCI Registration Remained Subject To Statutory Conditions

The Court observed that Section 7A of the Citizenship Act empowered the Central Government to register an eligible person as an OCI cardholder subject to prescribed conditions and restrictions. Although the petitioner’s original eligibility was undisputed, his continued registration remained subject to compliance with the Act and the conditions governing OCI privileges.

Explaining the cancellation power, the Court stated: “Section 7-D of the Act deals with the cancellation of registration. It empowers the Government to cancel the registration if the cardholder has violated any provisions of the Act or of any other law for time being in force, as may be specified by the Central Government in the notification published in the Official Gazette. Thus, it can be seen that the Central Government registers OCI cardholders subject to such conditions, and confers rights on them in exercise of its power under Section 7-B of the Citizenship Act, 1955.”

The Court held that S.O.1050(E), issued under Section 7B, required an OCI cardholder to obtain special permission from the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer or the concerned Indian Mission before undertaking missionary activities.

Permission Required Even Without Allegation Of Conversion

The Court found substantial material indicating that the petitioner had addressed congregations and religious gatherings in Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. It noted that advertisements inviting members of the public to attend his meetings had also been produced.

The Court clarified that the permission requirement was not confined to activities involving religious conversion. It applied even where an OCI cardholder undertook missionary preaching or spread the message of his religion.

The Court observed: “On the contrary, substantial materials have been produced against the petitioner, indicating that he has consistently been addressing congregations, gatherings and meetings at various places in Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh and that advertisements have been issued inviting the general public to attend his meetings. Those materials cannot be regarded by this Court as fabricated or concocted. It is one thing to contend that the petitioner is not involved in conversion and is only spreading the message of ‘God’. However, it is not only for conversion, but even to be a missionary preaching his religion, it is only a prior permission that is mandated.”

Accordingly, the Court held that the absence of proof concerning a particular conversion did not answer the allegation that the petitioner had engaged in missionary preaching without the prescribed permission.

Wholesale Denial Did Not Warrant A Further Hearing

The Court considered the petitioner’s reliance on Ashok Swain v. Union of India and Others (2025), in which the Delhi High Court had emphasised that relied-upon material must be supplied to provide a real and effective opportunity of hearing.

The Court, however, observed that the application of natural justice depended upon the facts of each case: “The principles of natural justice are not a straight-jacket formula, and their application depends on the facts of each case. If the petitioner had disputed any particular incident or activity, and if the respondents relied on only one or two incidents, the said ratio could be followed and applied in the instant case. The respondents could then be directed to furnish the documents collected against the petitioner, and he could be given an opportunity to deny each and every incident.”

The Court noted that the petitioner had not disputed individual incidents but had completely denied ever undertaking missionary activity in India. It found that this denial was inconsistent with the substantial material showing his participation in religious meetings.

The Court stated: “The petitioner has made a categorical and sweeping statement before this Court that he has never been involved in any missionary activities in India and has visited India only to see his mother, family and friends, which, on its face is a lie. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an equitable remedy and cannot be extended in the face of the petitioner’s blatant, bald denial and the materials placed on record before this Court.”

The Court consequently rejected the contention that the petitioner should be afforded a further detailed opportunity to respond.

Conclusion

The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the cancellation of the petitioner’s OCI registration. It closed the connected miscellaneous petitions and passed no order as to costs.

The Court clarified that the petitioner remained free to apply for a regular visa to visit his mother. It further stated that he could conduct religious meetings or undertake religious activities in India only after obtaining the requisite official permission.

Cause Title: John Daniel v. Union of India and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:MHC:4303)

Appearances

Petitioner: Senior Counsel R. Shanmuga Sundaram, assisted by Advocate A.G. Shakeenaa, for Advocate R. Vinayaga Vishnu

Respondents: Senior Panel Counsel Dr S. Padma

Click here to read/download Judgment