Back
When Citizenship Is a Misdirection: Court Slams Petitioner for Hiding Foreign Status
In a stinging rebuke to a petitioner seeking judicial relief, the of Punjab and Haryana has dismissed an application for foreign travel, imposing a cost of ₹50,000 for the "." The order, delivered by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry, highlights the high standard of transparency required from those invoking the of the .
The Disputed Travel Request
The applicant, Prerit Goel, a petitioner in the primary ( CWP-12631-2023 ), had moved the court to allow him to travel to London. He cited liberty granted by the in a pending Special Leave to Appeal ( SLP (C) No. 10530 of 2026 ), which directed that travel requests be processed by the . However, what began as a routine procedural request quickly unraveled into a probe regarding the petitioner’s fundamental identity.
A Crucial Omission: The Vanuatu Passport
During the proceedings, it emerged that while Mr. Goel represented himself as an Indian citizen residing in Gurgaon at the time of filing his in , he was actually a citizen of the Republic of Vanuatu. Because Indian law strictly prohibits , this concealment was not merely a clerical error but a substantive distortion of his legal status in India.
The court noted that in matters involving the cancellation of a ()—a tool primarily used to mitigate —the citizenship status of the petitioner is a "relevant" and critical material fact.
Arguments of Misrepresentation vs. Oversight
Counsel for the petitioner initially attempted to shield the discrepancy as
"inadvertence and a
."
The court, however, remained unmoved. Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry observed that the integrity of the
relies entirely on the candor of the litigants. By posing as an Indian citizen to secure a favorable order regarding the
, the petitioner had effectively misled the court to obtain relief he might not otherwise have been granted.
While the court stopped short of recalling its previous order—citing the fact that the matter is currently pending before the in —it signaled a stern warning by imposing costs to be deposited with the at .
Key Observations
The judgment serves as a precedent for the importance of complete disclosure in high-stakes litigation:
-
"Least that is expected of a petitioner who invokes the power of under read with of a , is that no material fact is to be suppressed."
-
"In a petition seeking cancellation of , which is issued where there is of the petitioner, citizenship of the petitioner assumes relevancy."
-
"We are of the considered view that applicant/petitioner No.3... by posing himself as a citizen of this country... suppressed material fact. In all probability, if this fact was known to this Court, then possibility of this Court not having allowed [the petition] cannot be ruled out."
Implications for Future Litigation
This decision underscores that attempts to play fast and loose with facts in writ petitions can carry heavy penalties. By dismissing the application and notifying the of the suppression, the has effectively signaled that procedural benefits—such as international travel privileges—will not be extended to those whose access to that very court was predicated on a misrepresentation of their standing. The case now remains in the broader focus of the , with the added weight of the 's findings on the petitioner's lack of candor.
