Union Govt Bound By Apostille Convention, Cannot Disbelieve Apostille Document Of Other Countries: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court on Thursday held that the Union Government is bound by the Convention of 5 October 1961 Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents (Apostille Convention) as India is a signatory to the same. The Court held that the government cannot disbelieve Apostille documents issued by countries signatory to the Apostille Convention.The Convention of 5 October 1961 Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents, also known as Apostille Convention, is an international treaty for abolishing the requirement of legalization for foreign public documents. It was brought in to replace the cumbersome process of certification of documents of one country by another. If two countries are signatories of the Apostille Convention, then documents issued by the government of one country are legally recognizable in the other country without any further need of verification. “India being a signatory of this Convention is bound to accept any public document issued by the other contracting party (country). An 'Apostille' document should, therefore, be treated as legalized document in India by all concerned, in accordance with the international obligation under the Hague Apostille Convention,” observed the Court. The bench comprising of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar held,“The Government of India has been signatory of the Hague Convention, and accordingly, the Ministry of External Affairs had issued Office Memorandum on 18.11.2020 treating the 'Apostille' document as a legal document. Here, when the petitioner had given 'Apostille' document showing her ancestry, it is not open for respondent nos.1 to 3 to disbelieve the same and not follow the Treaty, even though they themselves had signed.”Factual BackgroundPetitioner is a citizen of United States of America though born in Guyana, but of Indian origin. Petitioner's great grandparents and grandfather were from Allahabad and neighbouring districts and were sent to Guyana from Kolkata by ship. Petitioner presented before the Court an apostille copy of the immigration certificate of her grandparents from National Archives of Guyana.Petitioner claimed to have married an Indian citizen in 2018 in a temple in Mumbai. However, her application for Overseas Citizenship of India Card (OCI Card) through her spouse was rejected as her marriage was not verified. Petitioner's application for visa conversion on both accounts: her ancestry and her marriage. However, the same was rejected as her Visa was required to have a minimum validity period of six months. While the petitioner was running from pillar to post for obtaining OCI card, her visa expired. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the High Court for grant of OCI card and conversion of visa to X-1 Entry Visa on the basis of Indian Origination/Indian Spouse. Counsel for petitioner submitted that the visa granted to petitioner was extended from time to time has expired and is not being further extended. It was argued that nativity certificate is not mandatory under the Citizenship Act, 1955 and the Citizenship Rules, 2009 for grant of registration as an Overseas Citizen of India. It was argued that the petitioner had duly submitted requisite documents in support of her claim, demonstrating her Indian Origin as her forefathers were residing in Uttar Pradesh.It was contended that since India and Guyana were both signatories of the Convention of 5 October 1961 Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents (Apostille Convention), the immigration documents from the National Archives of Guyana were legally recognized documents in India. Counsel for petitioner submitted that the respondent authorities ignored the Office Memorandum dated 18.11.2020 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, stating that an Apostille document should be treated as legalized document in India by all concerned, in accordance with the international obligation under the Apostille Convention, 1961. Per Contra, counsel for respondents contended that the petitioner had failed twice to supply a copy of the dissolution of her husband's first marriage, accordingly, her application was closed. It was further contended that foreign nationals do not have a right to visa. The same can be regulated by the Central Government under Section 3(2) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 which empowers the Central Government to regulate the entry stay and departure of any foreigner in India.It was argued that the petitioner was informed that the OCI card services were temporarily suspended in 2021 due to the spread of COVID-19, however, no correspondence was received from her afterwards and as such the said OCI application could not be processed further.Lastly, it was argued that the documents furnished by the petitioner obtained by her from the archives of Guyana was not eligible for OCI card registration under Section 7A(1) or Section 7A(3) of the Act, 1955 read with...

Union Govt Bound By Apostille Convention, Cannot Disbelieve Apostille Document Of Other Countries: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

Tags