Back
Pakistani Spouse of Indian Citizen Cannot Seek Visa During Suspension:
In a significant ruling on immigration law, the has held that a foreign national, even if married to an Indian citizen, possesses no to demand entry into India or the processing of a visa application while a government-ordered suspension remains in force. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas dismissed a filed by an Indian citizen and his Pakistani wife who sought a visa to attend a family wedding in Kerala.
Wedding Plans Halted by Visa Suspension
The petitioners, Unaiz Kadumbottil, an Indian citizen from Wayanad, and his wife Khadija Jabeen Khalid Hussain, a Pakistani national, married in Dubai on . When Unaiz’s brother scheduled his wedding for , the couple attempted to apply for an Indian visit visa for Khadija. However, they discovered that the online portal provided no procedure to even submit an application.
The , opposing the plea, produced an order dated , issued under . This order revoked all existing visas for Pakistani nationals—except medical, long-term, diplomatic, and official visas—with effect from , and suspended all visa services for Pakistani citizens. The suspension was a direct response to the Pahalgam attacks on , which raised serious concerns.
or Violation of Rights?
The petitioners argued that denying Khadija even an opportunity to apply for a visa violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. They contended that as the spouse of an Indian citizen, she was entitled to at least be considered for a long-term visa, even if the immediate need was for a short visit.
The countered that no foreign national has a right to enter or remain in India except as permitted by law. It stressed that visa issuance is a , deeply tied to and . As long as the April 25 order remained in force, no visa could be processed for a Pakistani national, regardless of marital status.
No Right to Entry Even for Spouse of Citizen
Justice Thomas framed two key questions: Can a foreign national demand an opportunity to submit a visa application and have it considered? Does marriage to an Indian citizen create such a right? The court answered both in the negative.
“No foreign national has an inherent or legally enforceable right to seek entry into India and the issuance of a tourist Visa, as it is a of the State, deeply rooted in considerations of , and . No foreign national, even if he/she is the spouse of an Indian citizen, has a to demand that he/she should be permitted to enter the country,” the court observed.
The court noted that the visa sought was for a short wedding visit, not a long-term stay. Since the April 25 order suspended all visa services for Pakistani nationals except the limited categories, the second petitioner could not demand processing of her application.
Court Relies on Precedents
The judgment drew support from two decisions. In , the court held that an order under does not warrant when impelled by serious considerations. In , the court clarified that Article 14 guarantees only to individuals within India’s jurisdiction, not to foreign nationals outside the country.
On the Article 21 argument, the court held that the can be deprived by a . The April 25 order, issued under Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, constituted such a procedure. Therefore, the suspension of visa services did not violate Article 21.
Key Observations
The court made several pivotal remarks in its judgment:
- “As long as the order issued under remains in force, no Pakistani National can demand that his/her application for Visa be processed.”
- “The under Article 21 can be deprived on the basis of a . Ext.R4(a) having been issued in exercise of the powers under , is a .”
- “Further, cannot be claimed by the second petitioner as she is not in India presently. Though Article 14 applies to non-citizens also, the same can be claimed only within the territory of India and while they are inside the country.”
Final Verdict: Petition Dismissed
The court concluded that the regulation of entry, stay, movement, and departure of foreigners is an exclusive of the Union, flowing from its obligation to safeguard national sovereignty, integrity, security, and . Since the visa suspension order remained valid and had not been revoked, the second petitioner had no right to have her application processed.
The was dismissed, and the questions of law framed at the outset were answered in the negative. The ruling reaffirms that marriage to an Indian citizen does not confer any special immigration privileges when overarching security directives are in place.
