Siddarth Varadarajan, an American citizen with roots in India and living continuously here since 1995, was issued a PIO card in October 2002. (File Photo)In a setback for journalist Siddharth Varadarajan, one of the founding editors of digital news platform The Wire, the Delhi High Court Thursday recalled its earlier orders granting him relief in a case involving his PIO/OCI status, and took note of “suppression of material facts”.Justice Purushaindra Kaurav has now sought an explanation for his conduct on an affidavit and issued a notice.On Tuesday, the Delhi High Court set aside an April communication by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to Varadarajan, where the MHA had denied his request for converting his Person of Indian Origin (PIO) card to an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card. The court’s decision had come while deprecating the rejection of the request by the authorities without assigning any reasons. This order now stands recalled.However, on Thursday, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma, appearing for the Centre, informed the court that one of the pre-arrest bail conditions imposed by the Allahabad High Court, in a case involving alleged defamation of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath during COVID-19, was that Varadarajan shall not leave India during the pendency of the trial without prior permission from the trial court concerned. It had also stipulated that Varadarajan shall surrender his passport to the court.The bail conditions on Varadarajan were, however, not disclosed in his petition before the Delhi High Court.Addressing Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, appearing for Varadarajan, Justice Kaurav orally remarked, “…You’ve to take instruction, otherwise this is very serious.”Even as Ramakrishnan explained before the court that while she was aware of the aspect of the bail condition, it had “slipped her mind” in including it in the petition, and apologised for her slip, Justice Kaurav orally said, “These conditions have not been pointed out to the court. Please file an affidavit, we will have to dismiss your petition only on this ground because of suppression of facts… we accept your apology and will not take action against the petitioner, otherwise some action will have to be taken against him.”Story continues below this ad“Please file a proper affidavit because this has very serious consequences. This may lead to a very unpleasant situation…Petitioner will have to explain by way of affidavit, depending on the same, the court will decide whether we have to take some action against the petitioner or we have to leave it at that… We always believe the petitioner is approaching the court with full disclosure. Apologise by way of affidavit,” the court orally remarked.The court, recording in its order that Varadarajan’s entire pleadings and the submissions made till now “nowhere discloses the binding directions of Allahabad HC” in terms of the bail conditions, noted, “In all fairness, the petitioner should have truthfully disclosed the said aspects.”“The SC… has held that as a general rule, suppression of material facts by litigants disqualifies such litigants from obtaining any relief. This rule has been evolved out of the need of the courts to deter a litigant from abusing the processes of court by deceiving it,” the court recorded.Recording a “prima facie opinion that the petitioner is guilty of suppressing material facts before court,” it issued notice with a direction to “explain his conduct” on affidavit, within seven working days. The court will hear the matter next on May 25.BackgroundStory continues below this adVaradarajan, an American citizen with his roots in India and living here since 1995 continuously, was issued a PIO card in October 2002. In 2015, following a notification under the provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955, all existing PIO cardholders stood deemed to be OCI cardholders by operation of law. Varadarajan had then applied for physical conversion of his PIO card into OCI documentation, after his existing card stopped being machine-readable, before FRRO in New Delhi in January 2022. The MHA, after keeping the application pending for more than four years, refused Varadarajan’s application in a one-line email on April 2 without ascribing any reasons for the denial.The Allahabad High Court, in May 2020, granted pre-arrest bail in relation to an FIR, alleging that a tweet based on a report by The Wire, ‘Covid-19 Cases Spike in Nizzamuddin Nehru Stadium in Delhi to Become Quarantine Centre’, defamed the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh.Sohini Ghosh is a Senior Correspondent at The Indian Express. Previously based in Ahmedabad covering Gujarat, she recently moved to the New Delhi bureau, where she primarily covers legal developments at the Delhi High Court Professional Profile Background: An alumna of the Asian College of Journalism (ACJ), she previously worked with ET NOW before joining The Indian Express. Core Beats: Her reporting is currently centered on the Delhi High Court, with a focus on high-profile constitutional disputes, disputes over intellectual property, criminal and civil cases, issues of human rights and regulatory law (especially in the areas of technology and healthcare). Earlier Specialty: In Gujarat, she was known for her rigorous coverage in the beats of crime, law and policy, and social justice issues, including the 2002 riot cases, 2008 serial bomb blast case, 2016 flogging of Dalits in Una, among others. She has extensively covered health in the state, including being part of the team that revealed the segregation of wards at the state’s largest government hospital on lines of faith in April 2020. With Ahmedabad being a UNESCO heritage city, she has widely covered urban development and heritage issues, including the redevelopment of the Sabarmati Ashram Recent Notable Articles (Late 2025) Her recent reporting from the Delhi High Court covers major political, constitutional, corporate, and public-interest legal battles: High-Profile Case Coverage She has extensively covered the various legal battles - including for compensation under the aegis of North East Delhi Riots Claims Commission - pertaining to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, as well as 1984 anti-Sikh riots. She has also led coverage at the intersection of technology and governance, and its impact on the citizenry, from, and beyond courtrooms — such as the government’s stakeholder consultations for framing AI-Deepfake policy. Signature Style Sohini is recognized for her sustained reporting from courtrooms and beyond. She specialises in breaking down dense legal arguments to make legalese accessible for readers. Her transition from Gujarat to Delhi has seen her expand her coverage on regulatory, corporate and intellectual property law, while maintaining a strong commitment to human rights and lacuna in the criminal justice system. X (Twitter): @thanda_ghosh ... Read More © The Indian Express Pvt Ltd