‘Research on Caste, Religion Sensitive’: Union Govt Tells HC on Filippo Osella’s Deportation

Last year the government had deported the anthropologist as he arrived to participate in a conference in Thiruvananthapuram. The academic challenged the government order in the Delhi high court.

New Delhi: Justifying the deportation of UK-based anthropologist Filippo Osella, the Union government has told the Delhi high court that research on issues such as caste and religion was “sensitive” and conducting such research was a violation of visa norms.

Osella is professor of Anthropology and South Asian Studies at the Department of Anthropology, School of Global Studies at the University of Sussex in the UK. He has written extensively on Kerala for the last 30 years. On March 23, last year, he was scheduled to attend a conference in Thiruvananthapuram. However, he was deported upon arrival at the airport without being given any explicit reason.

The professor had sought the quashing of his deportation order. 

LiveLaw reported that the Union government in its affidavit filed through the Foreigners’ Regional Registration Officer of the Bureau of Immigration in Ministry of Home Affairs, claimed that topics like caste, religion and economy were “sensitive” and that research on them violated visa norms.

“…[T]he Petitioner during his visits on Tourist Visa has indulged in research activities connected to caste, religion and economy which by its very nature is sensitive, thereby violating the visa norms,” the government said.

Indian Express has reported that the Union government filed this affidavit on January 17 this year. Both Indian Express and LiveLaw reported on it on February 23.

Osella told The Wire that the next hearing in the case is on May 14.

“As I understand it, the government of India filed a counter affidavit in response to my original plea to the high court. The judge decided to consider the counter-affidavit in a hearing which will take place on May 14, 2023, and allowed me to present a rejoinder to the allegations made in the counter-affidavit. As the case remains sub-judice, it would be inappropriate for me to give any comment at this stage. I can provide you with an in-depth response and comment once the case is concluded,” Osella added.

The Union government had earlier, on October 12, told the Delhi high court that there was “sufficient material to blacklist and take action” against him.

The new affidavit claimed that the government’s powers to expel a foreign citizen were “absolute and unlimited” and that foreigners did not enjoy the fundamental rights guaranteed to Indians.

“It is stated that the manner in which, the foreign funds flow to the Petitioner for carrying out his research work in Kerala is an area of national security concern as the utilisation of these funds received by the Petitioner for his research work studies in India remain unaccounted for,”  the government’s affidavit said.

The government also claimed that the professor’s entry in India could have had “several serious security implications.”

The government also said in its response that the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA), exempts foreign contributors for academic purposes from the scrutiny of the authorities but the the funds have to be routed through the universities so that a record is maintained, LiveLaw further reported. It claimed transactions of funds in the professor’s case go against the FEMA.

The professor, in his response claimed, that he has no record of any unlawful activities and nor had he faced any problems at immigration before being deported. He also said no reason was granted while he was being deported and that the whole episode was handled in an arbitrary manner. He said he was treated like a ‘hardened criminal’ and ‘marched back and bundled into the same aircraft’ by which he had arrived.