Back
Divided by Partition, United by Justice: J&K Court Orders Return of Deported Teen
In a poignant ruling blending Partition-era family ties with modern humanitarian imperatives, the has directed the to retrieve a minor boy deported to Pakistan. Justice M.A. Chowdhary, in
Sajjad Ahmed vs Union of India
(WP(C) No. 2460/2025), emphasized that state sovereignty over foreigners must yield to
"
,"
especially for a child raised entirely in India after his Pakistani mother's death.
The petitioner, Sajjad Ahmed, a government school teacher from Rajouri, filed the writ after raided his home at dawn on —days after the Pahalgam terror attack—and deported his 18-year-old son, Aasim Sajjad (aka Fardin Sajjad), via Wagah Border.
A Love Story Spanning the Radcliffe Line
Sajjad Ahmed, an Indian citizen, traveled to Pakistan on a valid passport in to visit relatives. There, he married his paternal aunt's daughter, Shabnum Kouser, who had migrated during the 1947 Partition. Their son was born in Gujjranwala, Pakistan, on .
Shabnum and the infant entered India on valid visas in for a 90-day visit. Extensions followed yearly on marriage grounds until her death from illness on —when the boy was just six. Sajjad then sought visa extensions for his son on compassionate grounds, granted until , and continued informally thereafter. The boy, renamed Aasim, studied up to Class 12 in Rajouri schools, lived a normal Indian life, and had no family support left in Pakistan beyond a widowed aunt.
Key legal questions: Could authorities deport the minor without deciding pending citizenship applications under ? Does humanitarian compassion override expired visa status amid India-Pakistan tensions?
Father's Cry vs. State's Iron Fist
Petitioner's Plea: Sajjad argued his son was illegally deported without due process, despite multiple representations (2015, 2019) and a online citizenship application (MHA File No. 2024030441). He highlighted the boy's Indian upbringing, lack of Pakistan ties post-mother's death, and referenced , where similar relief was granted.
Respondents' Rebuttal: The Union (via ) and J&K Police claimed the boy overstayed without valid visa post-2015, making deportation lawful under MHA's order. They dismissed the citizenship app as "not received yet" without District Magistrate recommendations. Suppressing facts and disputed facts barred relief, they urged, as sovereign powers regulate foreigners' stay.
Sovereignty Tempered by Humanity
Justice Chowdhary traced the roots to Partition's "countless miseries," noting cross-border marriages were common. While affirming state authority over
"entry, stay and departure of foreigners,"
the court clarified it
"must be exercised in a manner that does not ignore human values and rights, particularly in cases involving minors with deep-rooted connections to India"
—echoing news reports on the ruling.
The judge distinguished this from routine cases: the boy held long-term visa (LTV) extensions till 2025, studied in India since age one, and his citizenship bid by an Indian father invoked Section 5(1)(d). Precedents like Rakshanda Rashid (and its LPA appeal, withdrawn after visa grant) underscored ad-hoc humanitarian relief without setting precedent.
Key Observations from the Bench
"The partition of Indian Sub-Continent in the year 1947... entailed countless miseries of human tragedy wherein... the families had also been divided."
"Having regard to the , the court must step in to pass certain directions."
"The deportation of the petitioner’s son is bad in the eye of law as the authorities have not followed ."(Petitioner's claim, upheld in relief).
"As and when the same [citizenship application] is received... the same shall be processed, in accordance with the extant Act/Rules/Law."(Respondents; court mandated expedition).
Reunion on the Horizon: Court's Directive
The petition succeeded with landmark directions to MHA Secretary:
(i) Retrieve Aasim/Fardin pursuant to the '' to pursue LTV extension and citizenship under Section 5(1)(d);
(ii) Expeditiously process the citizenship application (MHA File No. 2024030441), "preferably within eight weeks," factoring humanitarian aspects.
This non-precedential order (per prior LPA) reunites father and son, signals flexibility in immigration for India-Pakistan kin, and prioritizes child welfare amid geopolitical strains. For families fractured by history, it's a judicial bridge over divided lands.
Case disposed . Appearance: for petitioner; , for respondents.
