Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. Nagaprasanna, J.
Raktima Khanum W/o Mr. Janardhana Reddy - Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India Ministry Of Home Affairs Foreigners Division Major Dhyan Chand National Stadium Near Pragati Maidan New Delhi, Represented By Joint Secretary and ors.– Respondents
Writ Petition No.26769 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
Decided On : 05-01-2024
VISA MANUAL - Immigration Laws - Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920, Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939, Foreigners Act, 1946, the Immigration (Carrier Liability) Act, 2000 and the Citizenship Act, 1955 - The court discussed the functioning of the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) and the relevant clauses of the Visa Manual, emphasizing the conditions for conversion of visas, extension of stay, and the requirements for granting X-1 Visa to foreign nationals married to Indian citizens. The court highlighted the importance of security clearance and adherence to the visa regulations in the decision-making process.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Bangladeshi national, married an Indian citizen and sought extension of her dependent visa. The Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) demanded documents including an undertaking from the spouse for her stay in India. The petitioner failed to produce the consent of her husband, leading to the issuance of an exit permit and the court case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's failure to provide necessary documents and the adverse information against her, including suspicion of involvement in counter-terrorism activities, justified the issuance of the exit permit. The court emphasized the absolute and unfettered power of the Government of India to expel foreign nationals who overstay without proper documentation.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the petitioner's eligibility for visa extension, the demand for documents by the FRRO, and the national security implications of the petitioner's stay in India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the petitioner's non-compliance with visa regulations, the presence of adverse information, and the paramount importance of national security in immigration matters.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, sustaining the exit permit and directing the FRRO to execute the exit permit without insisting on any payment by the petitioner.
Key Points: - The court emphasizes the absolute and unfettered power of the Government of India to expel foreign nationals who overstay without proper documentation (!) (!) . - FRRO procedures for visa conversion and extension, particularly for foreign nationals married to Indian citizens, are governed by Visa Manual clauses (e.g., 1.34, 10.3) and require marital status, domicile, and security clearances (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Conditions for X-1 visa extension include nothing adverse being reported, no local objection, and ongoing verification of marital status and security due diligence (!) (!) . - The petitioner's extension requests were denied due to lack of consent from the spouse and presence of adverse information; the court upheld the exit permit and directed FRRO to execute it without payment (!) (!) (!) . - The record includes police and security concerns, including links to SSG and national security implications, influencing the decision to exit the petitioner from India (!) (!) . - The court directed FRRO to execute the exit permit promptly and not to insist on any payment, sustaining the exit order (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The FRRO’s role in processing visas and the necessity of documentary proof (marriage certificate, spouse’s Indian citizenship status, and security clearance) is underscored (!) (!) (!) . - Documentation requirements for extension include undertaking from sponsor/parents, residential proof, and identity verification (forms listed in p_149–p_167) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The decision rejects reliance on sympathetic considerations if national security concerns or non-compliance with visa rules exist (!) . - Final judicial order: writ petition dismissed; exit permit sustained; FRRO shall not demand payment; exit should proceed without delay following due process (!) (!) (!) (!) .
ORDER :
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question issuance of an exit permit to the petitioner which would result in deportation of the petitioner to Bangladesh.
2. Facts adumbrated are as follows:-
The petitioner is a Bangladeshi national, born and brought up there. Through social media it transpires, the 4th respondent comes in contact with the petitioner, after which, it is the averment that the petitioner came twice to meet respondent No.4 on her own expenses in July and August 2017 from Bangaldesh, once at Kolkata and again at Chennai. The two then, fall in love. The petitioner marries the 4th respondent on 25-12-2017. It is claimed by the petitioner, that the 4th respondent converted himself to Islam, on falling in love and subsequent marriage. After the marriage, it is the averment in the petition that the couple lived in Chennai. The relationship between the two flounders. On the said floundering of the relationship, the petitioner had to go back to Bangaldesh, as the tourist visa under which she was staying in India expired. Several other averments are made in the petition, which are not germane for consideration of the lis. It would suffice, if the narration is fast forwarded to 01-03-2019 when the petitioner applies for a visa conversion before the 2nd respondent/Foreigners Regional Registration Office (‘FRRO’ for short). The tourist visa was then converted into entry visa (X-2), which is a dependent visa. This was to be valid from 1-03-2019 to 29-02-2020. On the expiry of the said visa, in the month of February 2020, the petitioner applies for extension of visa and the FRRO extends the visa from 22-02-2022 to 21-08-2022 for a period of six months, with an observation that the petitioner is married to an Indian and permission is granted, only on that score.
3. The said visa expired on 20-08-2022. A letter for extension was submitted to the FRRO and the FRRO extended the visa from 22-08-2022 to 21-06-2023. After the expiry of the period of visa i.e., on 21-06-2023, extension was sought by the petitioner. It is here the FRRO begins to demand certain documents for the petitioner’s stay in India. One such document that was demanded was an undertaking/consent from sponsors/parents/spouse in support of her stay in India, as she was on X-2 visa, a dependent visa. The request of the petitioner was not considered initially on the score that the documents did not bear the consent of the husband. After non-consideration of extension of visa, an exit permit is issued against the petitioner, to leave India or she would be deported as there was no valid visa for her to stay in the country. It is this development that has driven the petitioner, to this Court in the subject petition.
4. Heard Sri Dore Raj.B.H., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri H. Shanthi Bhushan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Smt. Navya Shekhar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.3.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri Dore Raj B.H would vehemently contend that the 4th respondent married the petitioner after converting himself to Islam, but is now absconding. It is impossible for the petitioner to secure the presence of her husband and has sought maintenance at the hands of the husband invoking Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., before the concerned Court. In effect, it is his contention that the husband has neglected the wife/petitioner and, therefore, visa should be extended without the consent of the husband.
6. Per-contra, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India Sri H.Shanthi Bhushan would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that on two occasions earlier, by illegal methods, visa of the petitioner is extended. The petitioner cannot stay in India, as the visa manual, clearly indicates that if there is suspicion or any allegatio
The absolute and unfettered power of the Government of India to expel foreign nationals who overstay without proper documentation, and the paramount importance of national security in immigration mat....
Section 4 of Act runs as citizenship by descent.
A foreign national with custody of an Indian minor may seek visa extension; however, prior legal compliance is essential for consideration.
Fraudulent activities and lack of valid grounds for Visa extension and citizenship application render the petition lacking in merit.
An FIR against a foreign national for overstaying a visa can be quashed if no violation of visa conditions occurred, emphasizing deportation over criminal prosecution.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
