A foreign national on a tourist visa has no inherent right to reside or carry on business in India; the State maintains plenary, sovereign power to expel such individuals upon their breach of visa conditions or when their presence is deemed detrimental to public order, without requiring a pre-decisional hearing.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner in the above writ petition, a citizen of France, holding a valid passport and a subsisting tourist visa, is before this Court calling in question the impugned “Leave India Notice” dated 16.03.2026 issued by the respondent, produced at Annexure–B, and has further sought for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner through e-mails dated 24.03.2026 and 27.03.2026, produced at Annexure–C.

2. The facts, in brief, leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned notice dated 16.03.2026, which is stated to have been communicated to the petitioner through the WhatsApp platform, directing him to leave India forthwith.

It is the specific case of the petitioner that he is a law-abiding foreign national, holding a valid passport with validity up to 17.10.2032, and is also in possession of a valid tourist visa bearing No.VL3398736, issued on 25.11.2025 and valid till 24.11.2026.

3. Placing reliance on the aforesaid undisputed documents, the petitioner asserts that his entry into India is lawful and his continued stay within the territory of India is duly authorized under the visa granted by the competent authority, and therefore, the issuance of the impugned “Leave India Notice” directing him to exit the country with immediate effect, without due consideration of his legal status and without affording an opportunity of hearing, is arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable in law.

4. The challenge to the impugned “Leave India Notice” is primarily on the ground that the exercise of power by the respondent, purportedly under Section 7(2)(c) of the Foreigners Act, 2025, read with the relevant notification issued by the Government of India, is wholly arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable in law. The petitioner contends that such an action infringes the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which, as consistently held, extends its protective umbrella not only to citizens but to all “persons,” including foreign nationals residing within the territory of India.

5. The petitioner would further contend that the impugned notice is ex facie vitiated on account of absence of reasons. It is his specific grievance that the notice directing him to leave India has been issued in a mechanical manner without disclosing any basis or material, thereby rendering the action arbitrary and violative of the settled principles governing administrative fairness. In this regard, reliance is placed on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hassan Ali Raihany vs. Union of India ¹(2006) 3 SCC 705, wherein it is held that such drastic measures affecting personal liberty must be preceded by reasons and adherence to procedural safeguards. The said principle has also been reiterated by the Calcutta High Court as well as by this Court in analogous matters.

6. The petitioner also ventilates a serious grievance that the impugned notice is in blatant violation of the principles of natural justice. It is contended that no show-cause notice was issued prior to the issuance of the impugned “Leave India Notice,” nor was the petitioner afforded any opportunity to submit his explanation or to be heard in the matter. The denial of such an opportunity, according to the pet