US Journalist Sues Indian Government Over Revoked Overseas Citizenship
A U.S. journalist, Raphael Satter, is suing the Indian government after his Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) status was revoked. The cancellation followed his investigative report on Indian cybersecurity firm Appin, which alleged involvement in hack-for-hire activities. India’s Ministry of Home Affairs accused Satter of damaging the country’s reputation and practicing journalism without permission. His lawyers argue the revocation was politically motivated and linked to a defamation case against him. Satter, who obtained OCI through marriage, can no longer visit his family in India. The Modi government has previously revoked OCI cards of critics, including journalists and academics.
US Journalist Sues Indian Government Over Revoked Overseas Citizenship
Raphael Satter, an American cybersecurity journalist with Reuters, has initiated legal action against the Indian government following the abrupt cancellation of his Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card in December 2023. The Indian Ministry of Home Affairs revoked his residency privileges, citing allegations that his reporting had “maliciously tarnished” the nation’s reputation. Satter, who obtained OCI status through his marriage to an Indian citizen, now faces travel restrictions barring him from visiting family members residing in India.
A Report That Sparked Controversy
The controversy stems from an investigative report authored by Satter in 2022, which scrutinized the activities of Appin, a cybersecurity firm co-founded by entrepreneur Rajat Khare. The article alleged that Appin had orchestrated hack-for-hire schemes targeting politicians, corporate leaders, and activists globally. Following its publication, a defamation lawsuit was filed against Satter in India, with plaintiffs accusing him of spreading falsehoods. Legal representatives for Satter contend that the revocation of his OCI card—a status granting foreign nationals of Indian origin lifelong visa-free entry—was politically motivated, aimed at silencing critical journalism.
Broader Crackdown on Dissent
The cancellation of Satter’s OCI privileges aligns with a broader pattern under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s administration, where journalists, scholars, and activists critical of government policies have faced similar repercussions. Human Rights Watch has criticized such measures as part of a systemic effort to stifle dissent, particularly targeting foreign nationals with familial or professional ties to India. Satter, however, maintains that his visits to the country were strictly personal, emphasizing that he has never conducted formal journalistic work within India’s borders.
Legal Threats and Intimidation
According to Satter’s court petition, he and Reuters encountered threats from individuals associated with Appin prior to the report’s publication. One communication allegedly warned of diplomatic fallout unless the story was abandoned. Despite these pressures, the investigation was published but temporarily withdrawn for ten months in compliance with an injunction issued by a Delhi court. The report was later reinstated after legal review, though litigation against Reuters and other media outlets, including The New Yorker and The Sunday Times, persists. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has condemned the lawsuits as an “unprecedented legal assault” designed to intimidate journalists and curb exposés on powerful entities.
Appin’s Global Scrutiny
Appin, once a prominent player in India’s cybersecurity sector, has faced international scrutiny over its alleged involvement in hacking activities. While the company denies wrongdoing, former employees and cybersecurity experts cited in Satter’s report described a covert division dedicated to hacking operations. These claims have sparked debates about the ethical boundaries of private cybersecurity firms and the challenges of regulating such entities in a digitally interconnected world.
Satter’s Fight for Reinstatement
Satter, who describes himself as a journalist with deep respect for India, initially sought to resolve the OCI revocation through diplomatic channels but received no official response for over a year. His legal team argues that the government’s decision violates procedural norms, as he was not afforded an opportunity to contest the allegations before his status was canceled. Expressing confidence in the judicial process, Satter hopes the courts will uphold press freedom and reinstate his OCI rights, enabling him to reunite with his family.
The Delhi High Court has directed the Indian government to submit a detailed justification for its decision by May 22. Legal experts suggest the case could set a precedent for how India balances national image concerns with commitments to free expression, particularly involving foreign nationals. Meanwhile, advocacy groups warn that the escalating use of legal and administrative tools to penalize critical voices risks undermining India’s democratic credentials.
As the proceedings unfold, Satter’s case highlights the growing tensions between investigative journalism and state authority in an era where digital reporting transcends borders. The outcome may influence how global media navigate complex legal landscapes while holding power to account. For now, Satter remains in limbo, awaiting a resolution that could reaffirm—or further erode—the space for dissent in the world’s largest democracy.
