Foreign citizens cannot claim compensation for denial of entry based on the protections granted under Section 15 of the Foreigners Act, affirming the legal immunity of civil authorities.

JUDGMENT

The dispute is pertaining to unilateral cancellation of a multiple entry visa granted by the Central Government to the plaintiff, a Malaysian citizen, by the Civil Officer at International Airport, Thiruvananthapuram. According to the plaintiff, she was having a multiple entry Visa granted by the Central Government and as such, the unilateral cancellation by the Officer at Thiruvananthapuram Airport is illegal and she is entitled to compensation at the tune of Rs.3 lakhs. The trial court granted a decree for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- with interest, against which the Central Government and the Officers thereunder, who are the defendants, came up in appeal.

2. The entry of a foreign citizen within the territory of India and issuance of Visa/emigration as against a foreign citizen is governed by the Foreigners Act, 1946 . Section 17 of the said Act alone was repealed by the Repealing and Amendment Act of 1950 (35 of 1950) with effect from 19/04/1950. Section 15 of the gives protection to person acting under this Act from any suit, prosecution or any other legal proceedings. It is in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3 of and in supersession of the Foreigners Order, 1939, the Foreigners Order 1948 was enacted with dealing with the power to grant or refuse permission to enter India, which is extracted below for reference:

3. Power to grant or refuse permission to enter India -[(1) No foreigner shall enter India (a) otherwise than at such port or other place of entry on the borders of India as a Registration Officer having jurisdiction at that port or place may appoint in this behalf, either for foreigners generally or for any specified class or description of foreigners; or (b) without the leave of the civil authority having jurisdiction at such port or place.]

(2) Leave to enter shall be refused if the civil authority is satisfied that, (a) the foreigner is not in possession of a valid passport or visa for India or has not been exempted from the possession of a passport or visa;

(b) he is a person of unsound mind or a mentally defective person;

(c) he is suffering from a loathsome or infectious disease in consequence of which, in the opinion of the medical officer of the port or the place of entry, as the case may be, the entry of the foreigner is likely to prejudice public health;

(d) he has been sentenced in a foreign country for an extradition offence within the meaning of the Indian Extradition Act, 1903 (15 of 1903);

(e) his entry is prohibited either under an order issued by a competent authority or under the specific orders of the Central Government.

(3) The civil authority may attach such conditions as it thinks fit to the grant of leave to enter and such conditions may be varied in such manner or cancelled as the Central Government deems fit.

(4)(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- paragraphs (1) to (3) or in the [Indian Passport Act, 1920 (34 of 1920)], or in the rules made thereunder, a civil authority may, in the interests of public safety, prohibit the entry of any foreigner into India.

(b) Whenever the civil authority issues an order under clause (a), it shall report the matter forthwith to the Central Government which may cancel or modify the order in such manner as it thinks fit.

(5) Where leave to enter is refused to a foreigner, he may be detained at some place approved by the civil authority and may, if he has come by sea, be placed temporarily on shore for that purpose, and whilst he is so detained a foreigner shall be deemed to be in legal custody and not to have entered India.”

3. A conjoint reading of these two provisions would make the legal position clear that it is not permissible for a foreigner to maintain a suit for compensation or damages on account of refusal to enter into India either based on a Visa or otherwise. The civil authority competent to deny entry would stand protected by Section 15 of Foreigners Act, 1946 . Hence, the present suit is barred under of t