O R D E R

% 05.09.2024

1. The Petitioner, a foreign national of the United States of America, has filed yet another petition before this Court, this time assailing the Office Memorandum dated 02nd July, 2024 passed by Respondent No. 2, deciding Petitioner’s representation seeking review of the blacklisting order.

2. In order to understand the context of Petitioner’s repeated efforts in seeking directions to the Respondents to enter into the country, the previous litigation initiated by her must be briefly noted.

3 The Petitioner came to India on a valid visa, but was deported by Bureau of Immigration from Trivandrum Airport, Kerala on 28th November, 2022. Aggrieved by the said deportation, the Petitioner filed a writ petition bearing No. W.P.(C) 1250/2023, challenging her deportation. In the said W.P.(C) 12401/2024 Page 1 of 10 proceedings, she submitted that she is a professional yoga teacher holding Master’s Degree in Global Health from North Western University, USA and also asserting the fact that she is a licensed Physician Assistant in Montana, USA. On the basis of these credentials, the Petitioner also highlighted that she has been visiting India on tourist visa and also obtained a long stay multi-entry tourist visa from 31st March, 2017 to 30th March, 2027. Subsequently, she also obtained a business visa valid from 20th June, 2019 to 19th June, 2024. Taking note of the status report filed by the Bureau of Immigration, highlighting that Petitioner had been blacklisted at the behest of Foreigners Regional Registration Office, Trivandrum, on 18th December, 2023, the Court declined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950. The reasoning can be discerned from the following extracts from the said judgment:

“11. The Status Report reveals that the name of the Petitioner has been blacklisted at the behest of Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO), Trivandrum vide Reference No. 4/FRRO/BOI/TVM/2020(2)-1086 dated 11.08.2020 as she was involved in public fund collection while visiting on a business visa which is not permitted. It is stated that as of today there is an adverse entry report against the Petitioner.

12. It is stated that as per the General Policy Guidelines Relating to Indian Visa, when a person is granted a business visa, the purpose is to attend business meetings and technical meetings and funds cannot be collected for the said purpose.

13. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

14. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner has been involved in charitable activities and is collecting public funds for the purpose of a charity, and this cannot be said to be unlawful. It is stated that the Petitioner has rendered yeomen's services when cyclone Amphan struck in eastern India and she has since been closely associated with various charitable activities. It is, therefore, stated that in this backdrop, it is not W.P.(C) 12401/2024 Page 2 of 10 wrong to collect funds. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner holds a valid tourist visa and as a tourist visa holder, she can be permitted to come to India. It is stated that the Petitioner has come to India numerous times and the reason for blacklisting is completely arbitrary.

15. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent relies on Section 3 of the Foreigners Act which gives the power to the Central Government to make provisions either generally or for all foreigners prohibiting, regulating or restricting the entry of foreigners into India or their departure from India.

16. The short question which arises for consideration is whether the violation of the conditions of the business visa can be a sufficient reason for deportation and blacklisting of the Petitioner.

17. The Petitioner is a foreign citizen. The business visa as per the FAQs on business visa is granted to foreigners for the following purposes:-

“A Business visa may be granted to a foreigner for the f