The Madras High Court has permitted a 15-year-old British passport holder to represent India in the International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO). It directed the National Board of Higher Mathematics (NBHM), functioning under the Department of Atomic Energy, to permit the child to attend a training camp scheduled between April 18 and May 16. Justice S. Vaidyanathan passed the order while allowing a writ petition filed by the student S. Raghuram, represented by his mother Lakshmi Sundararajan. The judge quashed an order passed by NBHM on March 1 this year stating that all those who had been selected to represent India in the IMO should hold Indian passports.
Schooling in India
The judge recorded the submissions of the petitioner that he was born in London in 2003 and acquired a British passport in 2009. In 2010, he got Overseas Citizen of India card. In the same year, he moved to India and continued his schooling in the country.
The petitioner emerged as the Indian National Mathematical Olympiad (INMO) 2018 awardee and got selected to participate in IMO. He received a communication from NBHM on March 1 inviting him to attend a training session to be conducted by Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education with a rider that he should be an Indian passport holder.
After sifting through relevant provisions of the Constitution, the judge pointed out that Article 11 empowers the Parliament to make any law with respect to acquisition or termination of citizenship and all other matters related to it. In view of such power, the Parliament had enacted the Citizenship Act of 1955.
Section 7B(1) of the Act makes it clear that OCI cardholders would be entitled to such rights as specified by the Centre by way of a notification in the official gazette. A notification, issued under the provision, on April 11, 2005 stated that OCI cardholders shall have parity with Non Resident Indians in respect of facilities available to them in economic and educational fields. “In terms of the notification dated April 11, 2005 issued pursuant to Section 7-B of the Citizenship Act of 1955 and taking note of Article 11 of the Constitution, I am of the view that the petitioner will have to succeed and the impugned communication dated March 1, 2018 has to be interfered with,” the judge said.
