On 13th March, media reports suggested that a United States-based journalist, Raphael Satter, who held an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card, had sued the Government of India because his OCI card was revoked. The OCI status was revoked in 2023 after he published a malicious report claiming that a prominent Indian businessman was providing hackers-for-hire services to the government.
Satter works for the Reuters news agency and covers cybersecurity. According to his LinkedIn profile, Satter is a writer with Reuters since September 2019. His website states that he has been in the field of journalism for over 20 years. He was granted an OCI card through his marriage. In early December 2024, the Ministry of Home Affairs of India revoked his OCI status. According to The Guardian’s report, the Home Ministry, in a letter informing Satter about its decision, accused him of producing work that maliciously tarnished the reputation of the country.
The significance of the OCI card revocation
The OCI card is a privilege that some Non-Resident Indians and foreign nationals married to Indian nationals enjoy. It enables them to travel to India, residency, or employment restrictions without a visa. Essentially, it acts as a permanent visa and does not grant citizenship, as India does not permit dual citizenship. In recent times, the government has revoked the OCI status of several individuals for their involvement in anti-India activities, Satter being one of them. The Guardian’s report claimed that without an OCI card, Satter, who obtained it through marriage, could no longer travel to India.
Speaking to multiple media houses, Satter also claimed that his visits to India were not related to his journalistic work but were only family visits. However, both claims are either factually incorrect or misrepresentations of the facts.
Misinterpretation of OCI revocation
First, let’s discuss The Guardian’s claim that without an OCI card, Satter cannot visit India. The revocation of an OCI card, which was a privilege in the first place, does not mean that he cannot apply for a regular visa. He has the right to apply for a visa under relevant categories to visit his family in India after categorically declaring that he will follow all visa rules.
Secondly, based on available reports, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has accused him of two things. First, he has been accused of “practising journalism without proper permission” and secondly, “maliciously creating adverse and biased opinions against Indian institutions in the international arena.” He has written or co-authored multiple reports targeting India. Writing such reports cannot be done without engaging in journalistic practices, such as contacting people living in India.
If his argument is to be believed—that he did not indulge in journalistic practices in India while writing reports about India—it is even more unethical, as it would mean his reports were not based on any concrete evidence. A journalist has an obligation to contact concerned parties while writing an investigative report. By avoiding “journalistic practices” for such reports, Satter defied the basics of investigative journalism.
Connection to the Appin controversy
Interestingly, Satter’s lawyer has claimed that the OCI card was revoked at the same time that a defamation case was filed against him in India for his story against Indian cybersecurity company Appin and its co-founder Rajat Khare. The report, titled “How an Indian startup hacked the world,” claimed that Appin became a “hack-for-hire powerhouse that stole secrets from executives, politicians, military officials, and wealthy elites around the globe.”
The case against Satter, Reuters, and other authors is ongoing. For some time, the report was removed from Reuters as a district court in Delhi had passed an interim injunction. However, after almost a year, the injunction was lifted, and the report has been live again since then.
Satter’s past reports targeting India
One of the most interesting questions that needs to be addressed here is the claim made by Satter’s advocate that the OCI card was revoked solely due to Appin’s lawsuit and so-called exposé. Is this really the case? When OpIndia examined the history of reports published by Satter targeting Indian companies, the case appeared to be different.
In June 2020, Satter co-authored a report with the same set of authors, Jack Stubbs and Christopher Bing, titled “Exclusive: Obscure Indian cyber firm spied on politicians, investors worldwide.” The report claimed that New Delhi-based BellTroX InfoTech Services had been targeting government officials, businesses, short sellers, and others. The claims were based on a report published by Citizen Lab, which concluded the involvement of “BellTroX InfoTech Services” with “high confidence.”
Citizen Lab never stated in its report that they were 100% sure or had any concrete evidence that “Indian hackers” linked to BellTroX were involved in any of the wrongdoings listed in the report. However, Satter and his associates went ahead and published the report targeting India.
In another report, referencing a conversation with Sumit Gupta, co-founder of BellTroX, it was mentioned that while Gupta denied any wrongdoing, he admitted to providing IT services to private investigators, which might have included downloading mailboxes.
However, in 2021, Meta, in one of its reports, claimed to have blocked 400 accounts allegedly linked to the company, possibly used for sending “phishing links.” Details of the alleged targets were not provided. BellTroX was one of seven companies mentioned by Meta in its report. While there is some evidence that BellTroX was indeed involved in some hack-for-hire projects, Appin’s involvement in such activities remained vague.
Satter also published a report claiming the Indian government used Pegasus to spy on Indian journalists, a claim that has been dismissed not only by the Indian government but also by one of the leading journalists, N Ram of The Hindu group, who said that there is no proof of it in an interview with BBC.
The unimaginable ‘goof-up’ by Reuters
There is a notable aspect of the BellTroX story that emerged in June 2020. Reuters had credited a journalist from Delhi for additional inputs and a photograph of Sumit Gupta. However, the photograph was not of Gupta but of another business owner named Arvind Kumar, who had an office in the same building but occupied a different space.
According to The Print report, when they contacted Reuters to verify the identity of the person in the photograph, Reuters stated, “The person in this image was incorrectly identified as Sumit Gupta. We regret the error and have withdrawn the picture.” Reuters, a reputed news agency, “goofed up” and practically ruined Kumar’s life, as he was reportedly interrogated by the police after being misidentified by Reuters as a hacker.
Kumar told The Print that a foreigner had been persistently bothering him for a photograph, which was eventually used by Reuters. “This June 9 story corrects to remove reference to speaking with Gupta at his office” was a correction message posted by Reuters, which has now been removed.
While Reuters has taken down the image, a Google image search still identifies Kumar as Gupta, making this a grave error by the news agency. A detailed report on the incident was done by Marleny Huck. After the report got published, Reuters tried to get it removed but failed.
Allegations of threats and intimidation
The Guardian further claimed that Satter received threats from individuals linked to Appin. He made a bizarre allegation that if he did not stop investigating Appin, he would face potential “diplomatic” action, which, according to Satter, was the revocation of his OCI card.
Details of the court case
OpIndia accessed the court documents related to the case against Satter. The case was filed in 2022 by one Vinay Pandey and was first heard in November 2022. On 4th December 2023, the court noted that the article “How an Indian startup hacked the world,” co-authored by Satter, appeared prima facie defamatory. As an interim measure, the court directed Reuters to pull down the report until further proceedings.
The court further stated that allowing the content to remain online might have a “devastating effect” on the Indian student population linked to Appin. The court also directed Alphabet Inc. to deindex the URLs of the article. It further ruled that if the defendants suffered any loss due to the temporary removal of the content, they could be compensated monetarily.
However, in a 3rd October 2024 order, the court refused to grant an interim injunction against Satter and Reuters, allowing the reports to remain online until a final decision was made. The court observed that while the reports made allegations of hacking and unethical practices, the finer details could only be determined after a full trial. It recognised the importance of journalistic freedom and ruled that an interim ban on the articles was not justified at that stage.
Conclusion
Satter’s reporting on India raises serious concerns about fairness and accuracy. His use of weak evidence, misrepresentation of facts, and repeated targeting of Indian institutions show a clear bias rather than balanced journalism. The revocation of his OCI card was not random but a result of his actions. If he believes in ethical journalism, he should back his claims with solid facts instead of portraying himself as a victim.
