The power to expel foreigners under the Foreigners Act is absolute, and visa cancellation renders procedural fairness moot.

ORDER :

S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV, J.

The present writ petition has been filed by three foreign citizens namely, Mr.Obinna Jeremiah Okafor referred to as petitioner No.1, John Adekwagh Vandefan referred to as petitioner No.2 and Mr.Cyril Udoka Odigbo referred to as petitioner No.3.

Though the petition was filed by three petitioners, third of whom is Cyril Udoka Odigbo, who during the pendency of the present proceedings has withdrawn the writ petition, the petition was disposed off insofar as petitioner no.3 is concerned on 26.06.2025. Accordingly, the present lis remains for adjudication as regards petitioner nos.1 and 2.

2. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are Nigerian nationals and have assailed the action of Respondent No.1 in “Refusing to extend the visa and detaining them as well”.

3. The facts made out are that the petitioner No.1 had come on a Student Visa to Bangalore which was valid upto 26.04.2025, which admittedly as on the date when the matter was taken up for hearing was cancelled. Insofar as petitioner No.2 is concerned, he had come on a Student Visa to pursue his studies at Karpagam Academy of Higher Education, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu on 05.11.2024 and in terms of the information furnished in the counter affidavit, as he had not registered, his visa is stated to have been cancelled.

4. The petitioners were presented before the Foreigners Regional Registration Office– Respondent No.1 on 23.12.2024 and an order for movement restriction was passed on 23.12.2024 in terms of Section 3 (2)(e) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (Foreigners Act) read with para 11(2) of the Foreigners Order, 1948. The petitioners were then referred to Aasare Foundation Trust, Laggere, Bengaluru with a movement restriction not to move out of the Aasare Trust. From the facts and pleadings, it appears that the visa of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were valid as on the date of the movement restriction order. It also appears to be an admitted fact that visa came to be cancelled only later, after filing of the petition.

5. It is also the specific case of the petitioners in the reply to the counter affidavit that the procedure of passing a movement restriction order as well as cancellation of the visa was done in violation of protection against arbitrary action as available under article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It was further contended that the ultimate action which has adverse consequences on the petitioners insofar as their visa period stood truncated was passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice by affording an opportunity of hearing. It is also contended that the order of 23.12.2024 does not disclose reasons.

6. It was contended that the subsequent cancellation of visa was without notice to the petitioners and the defence of the respondent that cancellation of visa is linked to sovereign rights is not acceptable and cannot be construed to confer absolute powers that can be exercised arbitrarily.

7. Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India Sri.Shanthi Bhushan on the other hand has contended that the order of movement restriction is passed under Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, which cannot be found fault with, as such order was passed on the basis of inputs received from appropriate authorities as evidenced at Annexure-R8 with specific inputs form the Anti-Narcotics Wing and the Central Crime Branch. It is further contended that the petitioners have not challenged order canceling their Visa.

8. Heard Sri. Remmy Chibure Igwe, learned counsel appearing for petitioners, Sri.Shanthi Bhushan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent no.1 and Sri.Mohammed Jaffer Sha