Back
upholds visa refusal to US citizen citing sex offender conviction
Introduction : The recently dismissed a filed by Dhanraj Rajendra Patel, a US citizen of Indian origin, challenging the repeated denial of an entry visa to India. Justice Amit Mahajan held that the issuance of a visa is a and that the government was within its rights to prevent a convicted sex offender from entering the country. The Court also took a dim view of Patel's failure to disclose that he had earlier approached the over the same issue.
A Deportation and Repeated Denials : Patel was born in India but later acquired US citizenship and renounced his Indian citizenship. In , he obtained an e-visa and traveled to India, but was intercepted at Indira Gandhi International Airport in New Delhi and deported to Dubai. His subsequent applications for an entry visa were repeatedly returned without explanation. Patel then moved the along with his Indian spouse, seeking a direction to the authorities to consider his visa application and grant him entry.
Arguments from Both Sides : Patel's counsel argued that the respondents had failed to assign any reasons for rejecting the visa applications and that Patel, as the spouse of an Indian citizen, was eligible for an entry visa under the applicable policy. The , however, countered that the petition was liable to be dismissed for . It pointed out that Patel had earlier filed a before the challenging the denial of entry and cancellation of his e-visa, which was dismissed on . Moreover, the government disclosed that Patel had been convicted as a sex offender in the United States, a fact endorsed on his passport.
A
: Justice Mahajan noted that the earlier Gujarat proceedings were a material fact that ought to have been disclosed. The had already considered the grounds for denying entry, including Patel's conviction. The Court observed,
"Once the grounds for denying entry and cancelling the e-visa of the petitioner have already been affirmed by the
, the same rationale is also applicable to the respondents subsequently not granting the petitioner a fresh visa."
The Court further emphasized the sovereign nature of visa issuance, stating,
"The issuance of a visa is a
of the State that is embedded in considerations of national security, foreign policy and administrative discretion. Petitioner No.1, admittedly, has been convicted as a sex offender in the United States of America and the respondents are within their rights to prevent such people from setting foot on Indian soil."
Suppression of Facts Proves Fatal
: The judgment highlighted the suppression of facts, noting that the filing and dismissal of the petition were material facts deliberately concealed.
"The petitioners though failed to file the order dated
whereby the
dismissed his
, the same has been placed before this Court by the respondents,"
the Court recorded.
Decision and Implications : Finding no ground to exercise its under , the dismissed the petition. The ruling underscores the broad discretion of the state in visa matters and the importance of full disclosure by litigants. It serves as a reminder that sovereign functions like visa issuance are not subject to judicial interference absent arbitrariness, and that parties approaching the court must come with .
