AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking directions to the Respondents to remove/set-aside the blacklisting Order imposed upon the Petitioner (Iranian Passport No. U54206071) thereby allowing the Petitioner to apply for a business visa in accordance with law.
Succinctly stated, it is the case of the Petitioner – Ms. Anita Esmaeilzadeh, that she is an Iranian national, holding Passport No. U54206071, which was valid till 09.08.2026, with permanent residence at House No. 14, Block A, Hashemie Blv, Mashhad, Khorasan, Iran. It is claimed that she has had a long association with India, having first arrived in the country in October, 2016 as a student at Symbiosis International University, Pune, and subsequently got enrolled at Aptech College, Pune, in the year 2017. It is stated that in December, 2024, the Petitioner entered India on a Business Visa (B-2), bearing No. VL2743172, which was valid till 10.06.2025, and was interning with a company, namely, ‘The Unscripted’, in Hyderabad. On 09.06.2025, the Petitioner applied for extension of her Business Visa through the e-FRRO portal. However, upon visiting the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (‘FRRO’), Hyderabad, on 10.06.2025, the petitioner was informed that there is no provision for extension of a Business Visa. The petitioner, thereafter, paid a penalty of ₹25,000/- and was granted an Exit Permit dated 26.06.2025, valid till 10.07.2025, pursuant to which she departed from India on 07.07.2025, and travelled to Sri Lanka. While in Sri Lanka, the Petitioner obtained a fresh six-month Tourist Visa bearing Visa No. VL7794810 dated 09.07.2025, valid till 08.01.2026.
It is stated that the Petitioner, on 12.07.2025, holding a fresh Tourist Visa, landed at Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Hyderabad, but was denied entry and was deported to Sri Lanka. Then, in August, 2025, she was again denied entry without assigning any reasons.
As per the Petitioner, since she was not made aware of any blacklisting order pending against her, she had approached this Court by way of W.P.(C) 2975/2026, seeking directions to disclose her blacklist status and to permit her to apply for a visa, wherein the learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner has been blacklisted for a period up to 07.07.2027. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 10.03.2026, with liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate recourse against the blacklisting order.
Pursuant thereto, the present petition has been filed.
In the petition, two reasons have been furnished in support of the reliefs sought; firstly, that the Petitioner intends to set-up her business in Goa and secondly, that, being an Iranian national, she is unable to return to Iran owing to the prevailing situation in that country.
On being pointedly asked, it has been submitted by the Respondent/Bureau of Immigration that the Petitioner was blacklisted for, engaging in employment/remuneration activities which were specifically prohibited under the Business Visa Category, at the behest of the security agency.
Thus, considering the totality of circumstances and the material placed forth, the Petitioner’s claim is destined to fail because there is no inherent or legally enforceable right of a foreign national to seek entry into India.
The issuance of a visa/refusal of entry/grant of immigration clearance is a sovereign function of the State, which is embedded in considerations of national security, foreign policy and administrative discretion. A foreign national cannot claim any right to the issuance of a visa or entry into this country. Section 7 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 authorises the Central Government to make provisions, by an order, direction or instruction, with respect to all foreigners, any particular foreigner or any specified class or description of foreigners, for prohibiting, regulating or restricting the entry of foreigners into India or their departure there from or their presence or continued presence therein. The respondent authorities are, therefore, entitled to take into consideration all the relevant factors that may warrant scrutiny.
At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hans Muller of Nuremberg vs Superintendent, Presidency: 1955 SCR (1) 1284 had categorically noted that the then Foreigners Act, 1946 vested the Central Government with an absolute and unfettered discretion, and since there is no provision fettering this discretion in the Constitution, an unrestricted right to expel remained.
Subsequently, in the case of Louis De Raedt v. Union of India : 1991 (3) SCC 544, the Hon’ble Apex Court affirmed that the fundamental rights of a foreigner are confined to Article 21 of the Constitution of India in relation to life and liberty, and do not include the right to reside and settle in this country. It was held as under:
“13.The next point taken on behalf of the petitioners, that the foreigners also enjoy some fundamental rights under the Constitution of this country, is also of not much help to them. The fundamental right of the foreigner is confined to Article 21 for life and liberty and does not include the right to reside and settle in this country, as mentioned in Article 19(1)(e), which is applicable only to the citizens of this country. It was held by the Constitution Bench in Hans Muller of Nurenburg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail, Calcutta [(1955) | SCR 1284: AIR 1955 SC 367 1955 Cri LJ 876] that the power of the government in India to expel foreigners is absolute and unlimited and there is no provision in the Constitution fettering this discretion. It was pointed out that the legal position on this aspect is not uniform in all the countries but so far the law which operates in India is concerned, the executive government has unrestricted right to expel a foreigner. So far the right to be heard is concerned, there cannot be any hard and fast rule about the manner in which a person concerned has to be given an opportunity to place his case, and it is not claimed that if the authority concerned had served a notice before passing the impugned order, the petitioners could have produced some relevant material in support of their claim of acquisition of citizenship, which they failed to do in the absence of a notice.”
A reading of the aforesaid as well as the statutory framework, thus, makes it abundantly clear that the entry of a foreign national in India is not a matter of enforceable right against the State but a matter of sovereign discretion. [Ref: Randa Chehab v. Union of India & Ors: 2023:DHC:9126].
In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner overstayed in India beyond the validity of her Business Visa.
This Court is further satisfied with the explanation furnished by the Respondent. The decision to blacklist a foreign national, as well as the period for which such restriction is to operate, falls squarely within the domain of the executive. This Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot substitute its own assessment for that of the competent authority.
Even otherwise, it is also pertinent to note that the restriction imposed upon the petitioner is not permanent and operates only up to 07.07.2027.
As noted above, there is no inherent or legally enforceable right of a foreign national to seek entry into India. It is trite that the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked only where there is a violation of a right. In the absence of any such right, no writ can be issued.
Consequently, since the petitioner has not been able to establish that any right vested in her has been infringed, this Court is not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed.