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 the following reliefs: -
“(a)issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to disclose whether any adverse entry, restriction, record, order or other similar action presently operates against the Petitioner in relation to the grant of an Indian visa or entry into India and, if so, its nature, basis and duration;
(b)issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents, upon such disclosure and after affording the Petitioner a reasonable opportunity to be heard, in person or through counsel, to review the measure and to decide her representation dated 03.09.2026 by a reasoned order communicated to her within such reasonable period fixed by this Hon’ble Court;
(c)issue a writ of mandamus directing the concerned Respondents to withdraw any measure not sustained upon review and give effect to that decision in the immigration records and, if no such measure presently operates, to correct, remove or modify any immigration record continuing to reflect it, in accordance with law;
(d)issue a writ of mandamus directing the concerned Respondents to duly consider the Petitioner’s subsequent visa applications and consequent permission to enter India in accordance with law, without treating the measure so withdrawn or the record so corrected, removed or modified as an impediment following such withdrawal, correction, removal or modification; and
(e)pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Succinctly stated, the petitioner is a citizen of the United States of America and a lawful resident of Indonesia. It is her case that she was issued a Tourist Visa on 28.11.2022, valid until 27.11.2032. The petitioner claims that during her visits to India she was not involved in any activity in violation of the conditions of her visa. At the time of her departure interview at Chennai Airport, on 23.01.2024, the petitioner was informed by the immigration authorities that her aggregate presence in India during the calendar year 2023 exceeded the permissible period of 180 days. Though she paid the penalty amount, no order or Exit Permit was issued. Thereafter, when the petitioner arrived at Bengaluru Airport on 04.11.2024, she was refused entry into India and was orally informed that she could return after 09.04.2026. As per her, no written order or reasons for such refusal were communicated to her.
The petitioner further states that, she suffered a fall at her home in Bali, and Coimbatore hospital issued an invitation for the Petitioner’s application for Medical/AYUSH Visa so that she could receive treatment in India. On 06.06.2026, she applied for a sixty-day e-Medical/AYUSH Visa for the purpose of receiving supervised Panchakarma treatment at Vaidyagrama Ayurveda Healing Village, Coimbatore. The said application was rejected by an email dated 08.06.2026, without communicating any reasons. It is her case that, despite subsequent correspondence with the concerned authorities and a representation addressed to the Respondents seeking disclosure and review of any subsisting adverse immigration measure, no decision has been communicated to her.
Petitioner, a foreign national, essentially seeks issuance of directions to secure her return to India.
The petitioner’s claim is destined to fail as 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/ granting clearance of immigration is a sovereign function of the State that is embedded in considerations of national security, foreign policy and administrative discretion. Section 7 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 authorises the Central Government to make provisions, either generally or with respect to all foreigners, for prohibiting, regulating or restricting the entry of foreigners into India or, their departure therefrom or their presence or continued presence therein. The respondent authorities can therefore or rather be entitled to take into consideration all the relevant factors that may warrant scrutiny.
The Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 further requires a foreigner seeking to enter India to possess a valid passport or travel document and a valid visa. At the same time, the statutory scheme expressly contemplates circumstances in which, notwithstanding possession of the requisite travel documents, a foreigner may not be permitted to enter India on the grounds specified therein, including considerations relating to national security, sovereignty and integrity of India, relations with a foreign State and public health, besides such other grounds as may be specified by the Central Government.
The statutory scheme further contemplates an examination by the Immigration Officer of the passport, travel document and visa of a foreigner at the stage of entry and empowers the Immigration Officer to require such information as may be necessary and appropriate. The statutory framework, therefore, does not treat the possession of a visa as creating an absolute and unconditional right of admission into India.
At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hans Muller Of Nurenburg vs Superintendent, Presidency: 1955 SCR (1) 1284 had categorically noted that the 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 did not include the right to reside and settle in this country. It was noted as follows: -
“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) 1 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.”
The reading of the aforesaid as well as the statutory framework, thus, make 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].
Thus, in the present case, the petitioner, being a foreign national, cannot claim an enforceable right to be granted a visa or to be permitted entry into India merely on the basis that she had earlier been issued a multiple-entry Tourist Visa or that the said visa was stated to be valid until 27.11.2032. The possession of a visa does not, by itself, confer an absolute or unconditional right of admission into India. The petitioner’s reliance upon her medical circumstances and the purpose for which she seeks to travel to India, though noted, would not alter the legal position in this regard.
The reliefs sought in the present petition, though couched in terms of disclosure of the existence and particulars of any adverse immigration measure and consideration of the representation made by the petitioner, ultimately seek to facilitate her entry into India. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any inherent or legally enforceable right to seek such entry.
Even otherwise, it is not the function of this Court, in exercise of judicial review, to substitute its own assessment for that of the competent authority in a matter concerning admission of a foreign national.
It is also trite that the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked only where existing rights are violated.
Insofar as the prayer seeking disclosure of any blacklisting measure etc./prohibition on entry and adjudication of her representation is concerned, the Respondent is directed to furnish the requisite information regarding the same, subject to any permissible restriction on disclosure under the applicable law and decide the representation, in accordance with law.
It is, however, clarified that this direction shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the validity or legality of any such order or measure, if in existence, nor shall the Respondents be understood to be under any obligation to grant a visa or permit the petitioner to enter India merely on account of the aforesaid representation.
The present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along with pending application(s), if any.