Clearing the Path: Kerala HC Streamlines Compounding for Foreign Nationals Under New Immigration Laws

In a significant order aimed at easing the legal burden on foreign nationals, the High Court of Kerala has stepped in to resolve a procedural vacuum regarding the compounding of offences under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 . Justice G. Girish, presiding over the writ petition filed by Afghan national Ahmad Nasir Osmani, has mandated a mechanism for the submission of compounding applications to ensure the expeditious resolution of pending criminal cases.

The Context: A Struggle for Clarity

The petitioner, an Afghan national, had been in detention for more than three years in connection with a criminal case ( C.C. No. 1914 of 2023 ) at the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Changanacherry. Seeking to resolve his legal standing, the petitioner invoked Article 226 of the Constitution to request that authorities formally accept his application for compounding the offences under Section 25 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 .

A critical challenge faced by the petitioner was the absence of a prescribed, statutory form for submitting a compounding request, despite the legal provision being available.

Arguments on the Table

The proceedings highlighted the willingness of the Union government to extend the benefits of Section 25 to the petitioner. The Deputy Solicitor General of India, representing the Central government, confirmed that the petitioner could indeed seek the compounding of offences, provided he fulfilled the mandatory fee requirements specified in the Ministry of Home Affairs notification (No. SO 3999(E) dated 01.09.2025).

The petitioner argued that in the absence of a designated legislative form, the authorities should be directed to consider a signed representation or digital submission to avoid further delay, given his long duration of detention.

Navigating the Procedural Vacuum

The Kerala High Court addressed the lack of a prescribed form by adopting a pragmatic approach. Rather than allowing the administrative gap to hinder the petitioner's rights, the Court bypassed rigid formalities. Justice G. Girish directed that the petitioner submit his application via email, incorporating all necessary particulars, alongside the required fee payment.

The Court further ordered that if these conditions are met, the respondents must process the application and issue a decision within a strict two-week timeframe. Once the compounding is processed, formal intimation must be provided to the jurisdictional Magistrate—paving the way for the petitioner's discharge.

Key Observations

Highlighting the focus on administrative efficiency and the rights of the petitioner, the court noted:

> "The petitioner has to submit an application incorporating all the necessary particulars, by way of e-mail, and comply with the requirement of the remittance of fee as required by the notification... for the purpose of compounding the offence involved in this case."

> "If such an application is submitted, the respondents shall expedite the proceedings, and pass the necessary orders extending the benefits of Section 25 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 , to the petitioners within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the application."

> "If the necessary legal requirements are fulfilled, the jurisdictional Magistrate shall pass the required orders under Section 25 (5) of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 , discharging the petitioner from the offence charged against him."

Implications of the Ruling

This order serves as a vital precedent for foreign nationals facing similar legal bottlenecks. By allowing for digital, informal submissions in the absence of prescribed documentation, the Kerala High Court has ensured that the "compounding" facility—designed to provide a swift exit from the criminal justice system—does not remain inaccessible due to a lack of administrative infrastructure. As the petitioner prepares to fulfill the requirements, including the acquisition of travel documents, the case highlights the judiciary’s role in balancing strict statutory requirements with the practical necessity of ending long-term detention.