The judgment establishes the limitations of foreigners' rights in India, the power of the government to expel foreigners, and the process for acquiring and surrendering citizenship.

1. With the advent of the human history, habitations have been created and its frontiers delineated which are guarded zealously and jealously by its inhab- itants. With the evolution in different branches of activity which touch the human life, concept of making civilized societies was developed and groomed, in order to regulate human relations in different societies more particularly in civil societies laws were made to maintain and preserve the moral fabric of the societies. Borders are being guarded with all might against external aggression and laws have been enacted to prevent illegal incursion into ones territory and/or to push back a person who though permitted to enter the territory of a country, for any reason, whatsoever, his continuation becomes illegal. Every country has inherent right to preserve its political, socio-economic and territo- rial integrity. This is an inalienable right vested in a state and cannot be compromised with at any cost. In our country, in order to achieve the above solemn purposes, affairs thereof are being conducted in accordance with pro- visions of constitution and laws made which include the Citizenship Act 1955, for short Act of 1955, the Foreigners Act 1946, for short Act of 1946 and Passport Act 1967, for short Act of 1967 and other allied laws.

2. It is not only the jurisdiction and power of an independent sovereign country like ours to safeguard its borders from illegal incursions and intrusions, but is also its solemn duty, in order to maintain and preserve the territorial in dependence of our country to ensure that no foreigner is permitted to gain foot hold on our land except in accordance with procedure established by law, as otherwise, said act would be fraught with serious consequences. No foreigner has any guaranteed right to stay in this country without permission of the competent authority. And every foreigner is duty bound to leave the country as and when ordered to do the same. A foreigner™s entry and continuation in this country is not an absolute right and he can be asked to leave the country at any point of time. A foreigner who enters this country carries with him all the limitations which include to regulate not only his entry but his movement in this country. He cannot be permitted to move in this country in his own right and according to his own wish. He cannot be permitted to stay in the country without proper permission granted by the competent authority. The Supreme Court in case titled Louis De Raedt v. Union of India reported in AIR 1991 SC

1886 after referring to and relying on case titled Mans Muller of Nurenburg vs. Superintendent Presidency Jail Calcutta reported in AIR 1955 SC 365 has in para 13 ruled as under: -

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 far life and liberty and does not include the rights 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 Mans Muller of Nurenburn v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail, Calcutta (1955) 1 SCR 1284: AIR 1955 SC 367, 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 h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document