Back
Denies Interim Entry to OCI Cardholder Khalid Jahangir Qazi Over Blacklisting
The has refused to grant to Khalid Jahangir Qazi, an 81-year-old Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholder, who sought permission to travel to India to attend family wedding festivities in Srinagar. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia dismissed the interim applications, ruling that the appellant failed to establish a sufficiently strong case to override national security concerns.
Background: A Long-Running Legal Battle Over OCI Status
Qazi, a medical practitioner based in the United States, was issued an OCI card under the
. In
, the
issued a
alleging his involvement in "anti-India activities." Despite his reply, the government cancelled his OCI card in
under
. The
stayed that cancellation, and Qazi visited India in
. However, in 2024, he was blacklisted under the
, on grounds of alleged
"pro-Kashmiri separatist activities & anti-India propaganda."
He challenged both orders in separate writ petitions. On , a Single Judge set aside the , the cancellation order, and the blacklisting order, directing the authorities to issue a fresh notice with clear grounds. Both Qazi and the filed , which are now pending final hearing on .
The Interim Plea and ’s Intervention
Qazi sought interim permission to enter India for weddings scheduled between August and September 2026. After the requested the High Court to decide the expeditiously, the Division Bench heard the applications, with senior advocates for the appellant and Additional Solicitor General for the respondents.
Arguments on Both Sides
Appellant's Case: Qazi argued that as an OCI cardholder, he enjoys distinct statutory rights under , which cannot be rendered nugatory by treating him as an ordinary foreigner. He contended that the blacklisting order relied on the same material as the cancellation order and bypassed the mandatory hearing requirement under Section 7D. He pointed to his clean conduct during his previous visit and offered an undertaking not to engage in prohibited activities. He emphasised his age and the irreparable loss of missing family milestones.
Respondents' Case: The maintained that Qazi remains a "foreigner" under the Foreigners Act despite his OCI status. operates independently and requires no prior notice or hearing. The government asserted that the contained sensitive intelligence inputs, and disclosure would harm national security. It also argued that granting would amount to granting final relief before the appeals are decided.
Legal Analysis: Distinct Statutory Regimes
The Court identified several crucial legal questions, including the interplay between the Citizenship Act and the Foreigners Act, and whether safeguards under Section 7D apply to blacklisting orders. In a observation, the Bench noted that the two statutes appear to operate in distinct spheres. It highlighted that the , which is with , does not incorporate the safeguards of Section 7D, indicating legislative intent.
The Bench declined to examine the at this stage, returning it to the respondents, and held that the lies with the respondents who are entrusted with safeguarding national security. It further observed that granting would substantially overlap with the final relief sought in the appeals and prejudice the respondents' concerns regarding national interest.
Key Observations
"Since both the appellant and respondents have challenged the impugned judgment on issues directly bearing upon the appellant's entitlement to enter India, those questions must be adjudicated finally before any such permission is granted to the appellant to visit India."
"At this stage, we are of the opinion that the Citizenship Act and the Foreigners Act appear to operate in distinct spheres and that the safeguards under Section 7D of the Citizenship Act cannot, therefore, be automatically imported into proceedings under the Foreigners Act."
"Granting the at this stage would substantially overlap with the final relief sought by the appellant and would prejudice the Respondents’ Appeals raising specific concerns of national interest, which is paramount."
Court's Decision
The Division Bench dismissed CM APPL. 75597/2024 and CM APPL. 75638/2024, rejecting the prayer for . The Court made clear that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the appeals, and the sealed covers were returned to the respondents. The appeals and cross-appeals remain scheduled for final hearing on .
Implications
This ruling underscores the high threshold for in national security-related cases involving OCI cardholders. It also sets the stage for a landmark determination on the relationship between the Citizenship Act and the Foreigners Act, which could have wide-ranging consequences for OCI holders facing administrative restrictions. The final hearing will clarify whether procedural safeguards under the Citizenship Act must be extended to blacklisting actions under the Foreigners Act.
