Governmental authority may impose movement restrictions on foreigners without prior hearing as per statutory provisions, provided they afford opportunity for reconsideration upon request.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, a Nigerian national, is the 10, Dated this the 18th day of December, 2025 accused in Crime No.56 of 2025 registered at the Kunnamangalam Police Station for the offence under Section 22(c) read with 29 of the NDPS Act, now pending as S.C.No.212 of 2025 on the files of the Special Court (NDPS Act Cases), Vatakara. The petitioner was granted bail by the Special Court as per Ext.P3 order. Condition No.1 of Ext.P3 requires the petitioner to execute a bond for Rs.1 lakh with two solvent sureties each for the like amount. The order also restrains the petitioner from leaving India till the disposal of the case. The petitioner and sureties executed the bond in accordance with condition No.1, as evidenced by Ext.P4 dated 18.10.2025. On the same day, the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer/2^nd respondent issued Ext.P5 order imposing restriction on the petitioner's movement and confining him to the transit home at Kottiyam in Kollam District. Aggrieved this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs;

“i.Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P5 Order dt.18.10.2025 issued by 2^nd respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.

ii.Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to release the petitioner forthwith from confinement in the transit home and permit free movement of the petitioner within India subject to Ext.P3 bail condition; OR iii. To direct the 2" Respondent to afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard within one week and pass fresh reasoned orders under the Foreigners Act 1946 and Foreigners Order 1948, in accordance with law and principles of natural justice, while releasing him from the transit home, pending such proceedings considering his health and educational exigencies.“

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Ext.P5 order is ex facie illegal, the same having been issued without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In support of the argument, reliance is placed on Ext.P8 judgment of this Court. Alternatively it is contended that the 2^nd respondent has no authority to require the petitioner to execute the bond as directed in Ext.P3 order of the Special Court.

3. Per contra, the learned CGC contended that Ext.P8 judgment is rendered by interpreting Section 3 of the Foreigners Act , whereas, Ext.P5 order is passed by invoking the power under Section 7 (2)(f)(iii) of the Immigration and , 2025 and Paragraph 8(1)(b) of the Immigration and Foreigners Order, 2025.

4. A reading of the erudite exposition in Ext.P8 judgment shows that the decision was rendered by interpreting Section 3 of the Foreigners Act , which did not specifically exclude the rules of natural justice. Although Section 7 (2)(f)(iii) of the Immigration and providing for imposing restriction on the movements of the foreigner is pari materia to Section 3 (2)(e)(ii) of the , Paragraph 8 of the Immigration and Foreigners Order confers the 2^nd respondent with the power to restrict the movements of the petitioner. Paragraph 8 does not contemplate any opportunity to the accused prior to the passing of the order. For convenience paragraph 8 of the Immigration and Foreigners Order, 2025 is extracted below;

“8. Power to impose restrictions.—(1) The civil authority or any authority as specified by the Central Government in this behalf may, by order in writing, direct that any foreigner shall comply with such conditions specified therein regarding—

(a) his place of residence;

(b) his movements;

(c) his association with any person or class of persons specified in the order; and (d)