- 1 -

WA No. 1503 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 27

th

DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

WRIT APPEAL NO. 1503 OF 2025 (GM-PASS)

BETWEEN:

1. OBINNA JEREMIAH OKAFOR

S/O. MR. OKAFOR GODWIN

AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

R/A NO.15, 2

ND

FLOOR

3

RD

CROSS RD

NEW YELAHANKA

BENGALURU - 560 064

2. JOHN ADEKWAGH

VANDEFAN

S/O VANDEFAN WISDOM

AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

R/A NO 15, 2

ND

FLOOR

3

RD

CROSS RD

NEW YELAHANKA

BENGALURU - 560 064

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI REMMY C. IGWE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. FOREIGNERS REGIONAL

REGISTRATION OFFICE (FRRO)

BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, (BOI)

BMTC BUS STAND

- 2 -

WA No. 1503 of 2025

5

TH

FLOOR, 'A' BLOCK

TTMC BUILDING

KENGALHANUMANTHAIA H RD

SHANTI NAGAR

BENGALURU - 560 027

2. STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY POLICE INSPECTOR

R.T NAGAR POLICE STATION

BENGALURU - 560 032

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SHANTHI BHUSHAN H., DSGI FOR R-1 &

SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 READ WITH RULE 27 OF

THE WRIT PROCEEDINGS RULES, 1977 PRAYING TO SET

ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER AND JUDGEMENT DATED

14

TH

AUGUST 2025, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE

JUDGE IN W.P. NO.15380 OF 2025 (GM-PASS) (IMPUGNED

JUDGEMENT) AND IN CONSEQUENCE ALLOW THE WRIT

PETITION AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER AS PRAYED IN

THE WRIT PETITION & ETC.

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND

RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR

PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS

PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

and

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

- 3 -

WA No. 1503 of 2025

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an

order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this

Court in WP.No.15380/2025 (GM-PASS). The said petition was

preferred by the appellants as well as one Cyril Udoka Odigbo

(arrayed as petitioner No.3 in the said petition). The said petitioners

had filed the petition, inter alia, praying that they be released from

detention and that further directions be issued to the respondents

to extend the visa of petitioner No. 1 (appellant No. 1). The said

writ petition was dismissed in terms of the impugned order.

2. The respondents had filed a statement of objections alleging

that petitioner No. 3 was impersonating Cyril Udoka Odigbo, a

Nigerian national and a student of Rayat Bahra University, Mohali,

Punjab. It is stated that during further enquiries, it was established

that Cyril Udoka Odigbo was a regular student pursuing the

Bachelor of Business Administration (2024-2027) in Mohali.

3. Petitioner No.3 has not preferred any appeal against the

impugned order.

- 4 -

WA No. 1503 of 2025

4. The appellants Nos. 1 and 2 claim to be Nigerian nationals.

Appellant No.1 states that he is pursuing his course in Bachelor of

Commerce at Sree Omkar College of Commerce and

Management, Sathanur, Bangalore. Appellant No.2 had come to

India on a student visa for the purpose of studying M.Sc.,

Computer Sciences at Karpagam Academy of Higher Education,

Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu. He claims that he was in the process of

shifting to a new institution in Bangalore and therefore had arrived

in the city for that purpose a few days prior to his arrest.

5. The movement restriction orders were issued in respect of

the appellants on 23.12.2024, and they were sent to Aasare

Foundation Trust, Laggere, Bengaluru.

6. The respondents state that appellant No. 1 was i n

possession of a fake Tanzanian passport (Passport number AB

859343) in the name of David Masinde Edgar, with an Indian visa

(number VJ6547540) and an immigration arrival stamp dated

28.04.2024. It was found that although the passport belongs to a

Tanzanian national, the Indian Visa (No.VJ6457540) was issued to

a Sri Lankan national. It is further alleged that a letter dated

21.05.2025 was also received from the Anti-Narcotic Wing, Central

Crime Branch, Bengaluru, acknowledging that no narcotics were

- 5 -

WA No. 1503 of 2025

recovered from the possession of the appellants. However, it is

contended that the appellants had admitted that they were dealing

in narcotics.

7. The aforesaid allegations are stoutly contested by the

appellants. Appellant refutes the allegation that the passport of Mr.

David Masinde Edgar was recovered from his possessi on.

Admittedly, there is no material to show the involvement of the

appellants in the sale of drugs.

8. The undisputed facts are that appellant No.1 had arrived in

India on 15.09.2023 with a Nigerian Passport bearing No.

A11651384. He held a student Visa (visa no. VL7358115). The

said Visa was valid up to 26.04.2025. The said Visa was valid on

the date of the movement restriction order, that is, 23.12.2024; it

was subsequently cancelled.

9. Insofar as appellant No. 2 is concerned, it is alleged that the

appellant did not approach the concerned authorities for

registration after his arrival on a student visa (VL8983606) on

05.11.2024. The student visa was issued to him pursuant to a visa

invitation from Karpagam Academy of Higher Educatio n,

Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu. However, he had not complied with the

- 6 -

WA No. 1503 of 2025

requirement to register within four days of his arrival. Appellant no.

2 sought to explain his failure to register on the ground that he was

in the process of relocating to Bengaluru and therefore had not

registered.

10. The visas issued to the appellants were cancelled. However,

there is no dispute that even if the visas had not been cancelled,

they would have expired in any event (the visa of appellant No.1

would have expired on 26.04.2025, and the visa of appellant No.2

would have expired on 07.10.2025).

11. The appellants contend that the action taken by the

respondent authorities violated Articles 14 and 21 of the

Constitution of India. The appellants contend that the Movement

Restriction Order dated 23.12.2024 passed under Section 3(2)(e)

of the Foreigners Act, 1946 [Foreigners Act] read with Section

11(2) of the Foreigners Order, 1948 [Foreigners Order], is liable to

be set aside as it has been issued in violation of the principles of

natural justice. The appellants alleged that, although their visa had

been cancelled, they had not been provided with a copy of the

order cancelling it. Further, they had not received any prior notice

of the cancellation, which would have enabled them to present their

defence to the proposed action.

- 7 -

WA No. 1503 of 2025

12. The learned Single Judge observed that if the visas issued

to the appellants were live and subsisting, the question of

procedural fairness in issuing the movement restriction order dated

23.12.2024 under Article 14 of the Constitution of India would be

relevant. However, since the visas were cancelled, the question of

procedural fairness is not relevant. The learned Single Judge

observed that the aspect of procedural fairness, by itself, would not

lead to setting aside the order terminating the visa.

13. The learned Single Judge also found no merit in the

appellants' contention that they had a right to an extension of their

visas.

14. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended

that none of the allegations made against the appellants were

substantiated. He contended that although it is alleged that the

appellants were indulging in dealing in drugs, no such charge is

established, and no material has been produced to substantiate the

same. He contended that the appellants are bonafide students and

have the right to complete the course for which they have arrived in

India. It is also contended that the appellants' visas were valid on

the date of the Movement Restriction Order (as on 23.02.2024) and

- 8 -

WA No. 1503 of 2025

that they were, in fact, prevented from completing their studies.

Therefore, the order was invalid.

15. He submitted that the said order was vitiated as it was

issued in violation of principles of natural justice. He referred to the

decision of Madras High Court in Mohammad Zaenal Arifin v.

State of Tamil Nadu : Crl.O.P.No.25550/2021 and

Crl.M.P.No.14126/2021 decided on 26.04.2022 and drew the

attention of the Court to extract of the judgment in Muhammed

Kamal Islam and others v. State: 2020 SCC Online Mad 1171,

which was set out in the said order. The said extract referred to

Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights, which inter alia, provides that everyone lawfully within the

territory of the State would have the right to liberty of movement

and freedom to choose their residence.

16. He referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case

of Hasan Ali Raihany v. Union of India [WP(Crl.)No.17/2006],

and, on the strength of that decision, submitted that the competent

authority must inform the person being deported of the reasons for

his deportation; and, the said person must be given the opportunity

to submit his representation against the proposed expulsion. He

submitted that in the present case, the concerned authorities had

- 9 -

WA No. 1503 of 2025

not complied with the minimum requirement of communicating the

decision to deport the appellants and affording them an opportunity

to make a representation. He also referred to the Delhi High

Court's decision in Mohd. Javed and Another v. Union of India

and Others : LPA.168/2019 & CM No.11617/2019, whereby the

court had set aside the Leave India Notice directing appellant No.2

in that case, to leave India within a period of fifteen days, inter alia,

on the ground that the order suffered from the vice of arbitrariness.

Additionally, he referred to the decision of the Calcutta High Court

in Kamil Siedczynski v. Union of India and another

(WP.No.4432/2020); the decision of the Kerala High Court in

Manju Saud and others v. Union of India and others (NC 2025:

KER: 42092); the decision of the Delhi High Court in Ramesh

Ganeriwal v. Union of India and Another : NC 2017: DHC: 4571;

and the decision of the Kerala High Court in Jonathan Baud v.

State of Kerala and another : NC 2014 KER 46887.

17. The Deputy Solicitor General appearing for respondent No.1

and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for

respondent No.2 State countered the said submission. They

submitted that Article 19 of the Constitution of India guarantees

only the rights of citizens, not those of foreigners. They submitted

- 10 -

WA No. 1503 of 2025

that the Central Government had an absolute and unfettered

discretion to expel foreigners from India. They also referred to the

decision of the Supreme Court in Louis De Raedt v. Union of

India and others : AIR 1991 3 SC 1886.

Reasons and conclusion

18. We heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

19. There are serious allegations that the appellants have been

involved in drug peddling. However, no evidence has been

presented that conclusively establishes this. It is claimed that the

passport of Mr. David Masinde Edgar was found in the possession

of appellant no. 1. However, this claim is challenged as well, and

no proof of the passport's seizure has been provided.

20. The respondents also allege that the appellants were found

in the company of another Nigerian national who was

impersonating a student studying in Mohali. Further, appellant no. 2

had come on a student visa to join the M.Sc. Computer Science

course at Karpagam Academy of Higher Education, Coimbatore,

Tamil Nadu. But was residing in Bengaluru. These circumstances

may, at best, raise a doubt on whether the appellants are bona fide

students, but do not establish otherwise.

- 11 -

WA No. 1503 of 2025

21. Having stated the above, we may also observe that it was

not necessary for the respondents to conduct a detailed enquiry or

to prove that the appellants were engaging in any unlawful

activities to initiate action for expelling the appellants from India.

22. The Order dated 23.12.2024 issued under Section 3(2)(e) of

the Foreigners Act, referring the appellants as well as Cyril Udoka

Odigbo, to Aasare Foundation Trust, Laggere, Bengaluru, was

issued pursuant to a letter from the Police Inspector of the RT

Nagar PS, Bengaluru City. He had reported that the police officials

had been investigating the illegal activities of foreign nationals

residing at a house of one Fathima Rizwan, at No. 10/B, 8

th

Cross,

Seethana Lane, Chamundinagar. During the investigation, they

found that a woman of Nigerian origin was residing there illegally

after her visa expired. The inquiries had revealed that there were

three (03) other persons, who were residing in the said house, and

it was alleged that they were residing illegally, and their visas had

expired. The appellants were the three persons of Nigerian origin.

23. Undisputedly, one of the three persons (writ petitioner no.3)

was found to be impersonating another person, a student of

Nigerian origin, who was pursuing his course at Rayat Bahra

University, Mohali, Punjab.

- 12 -

WA No. 1503 of 2025

24. It is stated that although no narcotics were found in

possession of the appellants, examination of their mobile phones

did reveal that they contained information concerning the sale of

narcotics.

25. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to refer to Section 3

of the Foreigners Act. The same is set up below:

3. Power to make orders .—(1) The Central

Government may by order make provision, either generally

or with respect to all foreigners or with respect to any

particular foreigner or any prescribed class or description of

foreigner, for prohibiting, regulating or restricting the entry

of foreigners into India or their departure therefrom or their

presence or continued presence therein.

(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality

of the foregoing power, orders made under this section may

provide that the foreigner—

(

a) shall not enter India, or shall enter India only at

such times and by such route and at such port or

place and subject to the observation of such

conditions on arrival as may be prescribed;

(

b) shall not depart from India, or shall depart only at

such times and by such route and from such port

or place and subject to the observance of such

conditions on departure as may be prescribed;

(

c) shall not remain in India or in any prescribed area

therein;

(

cc) shall, if he has been required by order under this

action not to remain in India, meet from any

resources at his disposal the cost of his disposal

- 13 -

WA No. 1503 of 2025

the cost of his removal from India and of his

maintenance therein pending such removal];

(

d) shall remove himself to, and remain in, such area

in India a may be prescribed;

(

e) shall comply with such conditions as may be

prescribed or specified—

(

i) requiring him to reside in a particular place;

(

ii) imposing any restrictions on his movements;

(

iii) requiring him to furnish such proof of his

identity and to report such particulars to such

authority in such manner and at such time and

place as may be prescribed or specified;

(

iv) requiring him to allow his photograph and

finger impressions to be taken and to furnish

specimens of his handwriting and signature to

such authority and at such time and place as

may be prescribed or specified;

(

v) requiring him to submit himself to such

medical examination by such authority and at

such time and place as may be prescribed or

specified;

(

vi) prohibiting him from association with persons

of a prescribed or specified description;

(

vii) prohibiting him from engaging in activities of

a prescribed or specified description;

(

viii) prohibiting him from using or possessing

prescribed articles;

(

ix) otherwise regulating his conduct in any such

particular as may be prescribed or specified;

(

f) shall enter into a bond with or without sureties for

the due observance of, or as an alternative to the

enforcement of, any or all prescribed or specified

restrictions or conditions;

- 14 -

WA No. 1503 of 2025

and make provision for any matter which is to be

or may be prescribed and] for such incidental and

supplementary matters as may, in the opinion of

the Central Government, be expedient or

necessary for giving effect to this Act.

(

g) shall be arrested and detained or confined;

(3) Any authority prescribed in this behalf may, with

respect to any particular foreigner, make orders under

clause (

e) or clause (f) of sub-section (2).”

26. The Foreigners Act was repealed by the Immigration and

Foreigners Act 2025 [I&F Act]. It is relevant to refer to Sections 3

and 7 of the said Act. The same are reproduced below:

3. Requirement of passport or other travel document

and visa.—(1) No person proceeding from any place

outside India shall enter, or attempt to enter, India by air,

water or land unless he is in possession of a valid passport

or other travel document, and in case of a foreigner, also a

valid visa, and any foreigner while present in India shall also

be required to possess valid passport or other valid travel

document and valid visa, unless exempted under Section 33

or through intergovernmental agreements:

Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in

this sub-section, no foreigner shall be allowed to enter into

or stay in India, if he is found inadmissible to do so on

account of threat to national security, sovereignty and

integrity of India, relations with a foreign State or public

health or on such other grounds as the Central Government

may, specify in this behalf:

Provided further that the decision of the Immigration

officer in this regard shall be final and binding.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in

Section 3 of the Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967), no person

- 15 -

WA No. 1503 of 2025

shall depart or attempt to depart from India by air, water or

land unless he is in possession of a valid passport or other

travel document and in case of a foreigner, also a valid visa:

Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in

this sub-section, no person shall be allowed to depart or exit

from India, if his presence is required in India by any

authorised agency or on such grounds as the Central

Government may, by order, specify in this behalf:

Provided further that the decision of the Immigration

officer in this regard shall be final and binding.

(3) The Immigration Officer may examine the

passport or other travel document and visa of a foreigner

during his entry into, transit through, stay in, movement

within India and also require him to furnish such information

as may be necessary and appropriate.

(4) The Immigration Officer may seize a passport or

other travel document of any person which has been

declared as lost or stolen or considered as damaged or

forged or fraudulently obtained or on the direction of the

passport issuing authority or courts.

(5) The overall supervision, direction and control on

visa and related matters shall vest in and be exercised by

the Central Government.

** ** ** **

7. Power to issue orders, directions or instructions

.—

(1) The Central Government may, by an order or direction or

instruction, make provisions, either generally or with respect

to all foreigners or with respect to any particular foreigner or

any specified class or description of foreigner, for

prohibiting, regulating or restricting the entry of foreigners

into India or, their departure therefrom or their presence or

continued presence therein.

(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the

generality of the foregoing power, the orders or directions or

- 16 -

WA No. 1503 of 2025

instructions issued under this section may provide that the

foreigner—

(

a) shall not enter India, or shall enter India only at

such times and by such route and at such port or place and

subject to the observance of such conditions on arrival as

may be specified;

(

b) shall not depart from India, or shall depart only at

such times and by such route and from such port or place

and subject to the observance of such conditions on

departure as may be specified;

(

c) shall not remain in India or in any specified area

therein;

(

d) shall, if he has been required by order or direction

or instruction under this section not to remain in India, meet

from any resources at his disposal the cost of his removal

from India and of his maintenance therein pending such

removal;

(

e) shall remove himself to, and remain in, such area

in India as may be specified;

(

f) shall comply with such conditions as may be

specified—

(

i) requiring him to present himself for examination,

for such information in such manner, at such time, as may

be required;

(

ii) requiring him to reside in a particular place;

(

iii) imposing any restrictions on his movements;

(

iv) requiring him to furnish such proof of his identity

and to report such particulars to such authority in such

manner and at such time and place as may be specified;

(

v) requiring him to allow his photograph and

biometric information, as may be specified, to be taken and

to furnish specimens of his handwriting and signature to

such authority and at such time and place as may be

specified;

- 17 -

WA No. 1503 of 2025

(vi) requiring him to submit himself to such medical

examination by such authority and at such time and place as

may be specified;

(

vii) prohibiting him from association with persons of

a specified description;

(

viii) prohibiting him from engaging in activities of a

specified description;

(

ix) prohibiting him from using or possessing specified

articles;

(

x) regulating his conduct in any such particular as

may be specified.

(3) In addition to the foregoing, the Central

Government may make provision for any matter which is to

be or may be specified and for such incidental and

supplementary matters as may be expedient or necessary

for giving effect to this Act.

(4) Any authority specified in this behalf may, with

respect to any particular foreigner, issue order or direction or

instruction under clause (

f) of sub-section (2).

27. It is clear from the above that the central government has

the authority to issue an order expelling any foreigner from India.

The foreigner is then required to comply with such an order. It is

well settled that the rights under Article 19(1)(d) and 19(1)(e) of the

Constitution of India, which are the right to move freely throughout

India and the right to reside and settle in any part of the country,

are available only to citizens of India and not to foreigners.

- 18 -

WA No. 1503 of 2025

28. In Hans Muller of Nurenburg v. State of W.B. ,

(1955) 1 SCC 167

, the constitution bench of the Supreme

Court held as under

:

34. Article 19 of the Constitution confers certain

fundamental rights of freedom on the citizens of India,

among them, the right “to move freely throughout the

territory of India” and “to reside and settle in any part of

India,” subject only to laws that impose reasonable

restrictions on the exercise of those rights in the interests of

the general public or for the protection of the interests of

any Scheduled Tribe. No corresponding rights are given to

foreigners. All that is guaranteed to them is protection to life

and liberty in accordance with the laws of the land. This is

conferred by Article 21 which is in the following terms:

“21.

Protection of life and personal liberty.—No person

shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except

according to procedure established by law.”

** ** ** **

35. Entries 9, 10, 17, 18 and 19 in the Union List confer

wide powers on the Centre to make laws about, among

other things, admission into and expulsion from India, about

extradition and aliens and about preventive detention

connected with foreign affairs. Therefore, the right to make

laws about the extradition or aliens and about their

expulsion from the land is expressly conferred; also, it is to

be observed that extradition and expulsion are contained in

separate entries indicating that though they may overlap in

certain aspects, they are different and distinct subjects. And

that brings us to the Foreigners Act, which deals, among

other things, with expulsion, and the Extradition Act, which

regulates extradition.

- 19 -

WA No. 1503 of 2025

36. The Foreigners Act confers the power to expel

foreigners from India. It vests the Central Government with

absolute and unfettered discretion and, as there is no

provision fettering this discretion in the Constitution, an

unrestricted right to expel remains.

** ** ** **

40. In the case of expulsion, no idea of punishment is

involved, at any rate, in theory, and if a man is prepared to

leave voluntarily, he can ordinarily go as and when he

pleases. But the right is not his. Under the Indian law, the

matter is left to the unfettered discretion of the Union

Government and that Government can prescribe the route

and the port or place of departure and can place him on a

particular ship or plane. [

See Sections 3(2)(b) and 6 of the

Foreigners Act.] Whether the Captain of a foreign ship or

plane can be compelled to take a passenger he does not

want or to follow a particular route is a matter that does not

arise and we express no opinion on it. But assuming that he

is willing to do so, the right of the Government to make the

order vis-à-vis the man expelled is absolute.

[emphasis added]

29. In Louis De Raedt v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 554 : 1991

SCC (Cri) 886, the Supreme Court held as under:

“13. The next point taken on behalf of the petitioners, that

the foreigners also enjoy some fundamental rights under the

Constitution of this country, is also of not much help to

them. The fundamental right of the foreigner is confined to

Article 21 for life and liberty and does not include the right

to reside and settle in this country, as mentioned in Article

19(1)(

e), which is applicable only to the citizens of this

country. It was held by the Constitution Bench in

Hans

Muller of Nurenburg

v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail,

Calcutta

[(1955) 1 SCR 1284 : AIR 1955 SC 367 : 1955 Cri LJ

876] that the power of the government in India to expel

foreigners is absolute and unlimited and there is no provision

- 20 -

WA No. 1503 of 2025

in the Constitution fettering this discretion. It was pointed

out that the legal position on this aspect is not uniform in all

the countries but so far the law which operates in India is

concerned, the executive government has unrestricted right

to expel a foreigner. So far the right to be heard is

concerned, there cannot be any hard and fast rule about the

manner in which a person concerned has to be given an

opportunity to place his case and it is not claimed that if the

authority concerned had served a notice before passing the

impugned order, the petitioners could have produced some

relevant material in support of their claim of acquisition of

citizenship, which they failed to do in the absence of a

notice.”

30. Whilst a person who is not a citizen of India is not

guaranteed the rights under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, it

is equally well settled that the Constitution recognizes the right of

all persons to equal protection of laws under Article 14 and the right

to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

31. “Life” under Article 21 of the Constitution has been

interpreted broadly. It not only signifies biological existence but also

covers all aspects of life. In Delhi Transport Corporation v DTC

Mazdoor Congress: 1991 Supp(1) SCC 600, the Supreme Court

also emphasised that the right to life and liberty guaranteed under

Article 21 of the Constitution also comprehends life with dignity.

The rights under Article 19 of the Constitution of India are, to some

extent, connected with the right to life. In Maneka Gandhi v Union

of India: 1978 (1) SCC 248, the Supreme Court observed that:

- 21 -

WA No. 1503 of 2025

“The law is now settled that no article in Part III is an island

but Part of a continent, and the conspectus of the whole part

gives the direction and correction needed for interpretation of

these basic provisions. Man is not dissectible into separate

limbs and, likewise, cardinal rights in an organic constitution,

which make man human, have a synthesis. The proposition

is indubitable that Art. 21 does not, in a given situation,

exclude Art. 19 if both rights are breached.”

32. It follows that although the power of the central government

to expel a foreigner is absolute, the exercise of such power cannot

be in disregard of procedural fairness. In Hasan Ali Raihany v.

Union of India: (2006) 3 SCC 705,

the Supreme Court considered

the question of procedural fairness in a decision to deport a foreign

national who had entered the territory of India on a valid visa. In

this regard the court observed as under:

“6. The question that arises for consideration is whether the

authorities intend to deport him again and if so, whether they

are obliged to disclose to the petitioner the reasons for his

proposed deportation.

** ** ** **

8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,

particularly, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has

entered this country legally upon the single entry permit

issued to him, it is only fair that the competent authority must

inform him the reasons for his deportation. If such a decision

is taken, the petitioner must be given an opportunity to

submit his representation against his proposed expulsion.

The competent authority may thereafter consider his

- 22 -

WA No. 1503 of 2025

representation and pass appropriate order. As observed by

this Court, this procedure may be departed from for

compelling reasons of national security, etc. In the instant

case, we have not so far noticed any fact which may provide

a compelling reason for the State not to observe this

procedure.

9. We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition with the

directions to the competent authority, who we are told is the

Deputy Commissioner of Police and FRRO, Mumbai, to

communicate to the petitioner the reasons why he is sought

to be deported from this country. The reasons disclosed

must be sufficient to enable the petitioner to make an

effective representation, if he wishes to do so. The petitioner

shall be given two weeks' time to make a representation

which shall be considered by the competent authority as

soon as possible. Any order passed shall be communicated

to the petitioner forthwith.”

33. In the present case, the visa issued to the appellants was

cancelled prior to its expiry. Undeniably, the Movement Restriction

order, does curtail the liberty of the appellants. Thus, it was

necessary to comply with the minimum procedural fai rness

standards. The appellants were required to be informed of the

reasons for the said order, and at the very least ought to have been

given an opportunity to submit their representation.

34. However, it is not necessary to examine the question in any

further detail. We say so because the appellants’ visas would have

expired in any event. Thus, even if the decision to cancel the visas

- 23 -

WA No. 1503 of 2025

is faulted on the ground that it violated the principles of procedural

fairness, there is no denying that the same would have expired by

efflux of time. And, a foreigner has no right to insist on a visa or its

renewal. The right to decline a grant or extension of a visa is clearly

an unfettered sovereign right, and it is not necessary for the State

to provide any explanation for denying a visa.

35. In State of U.P. v. Abdul Samad: 1962 SCC OnLine SC

40, the Supreme Court, in the context of deportation of individuals

who had continued to stay in India after expiry of their visas,

observed as under:

“12. Before proceeding to examine the reasoning of the

learned Judges it is necessary to state one matter. In view of

the very limited question before us we do not feel called

upon to deal with the scope of Article 22(1) or 22(2) or of

the two clauses read together in relation to the taking into

custody of a person for the purpose of executing a lawful

order of deportation which would require to be considered in

regard to the detention during what has been stated earlier

as the first period. When the question does arise for decision

the following circumstances would be among those to be

considered before the scope of the constitutional guarantee

could be properly determined : (

1) An alien has no legal and

enforceable right to enter the country and can do so only

subject to the permission granted by the executive under

our law and when such a person overstays in the country

beyond the period for which he is so permitted, the State

acting through the executive is entitled to require the alien

to quit the country for the mere reason that the period for

which he has been permitted to stay has elapsed. (2) That

where an alien is taken into custody in pursuance of a valid

order of deportation he is not charged with any offence

within the meaning of these words in Collector of

- 24 -

WA No. 1503 of 2025

Malabar v. Ebrahim Hajee [1957 SCR 970] but the State is merely effecting his removal from the country — an act

which the alien was himself bound by law to have done. (3)

When the Constitution makes a provision for production

before a Magistrate, the requirement is not to be treated as

any formality but as purposeful and designed to enable the

person arrested and detained to be released on bail or other

provision made for his proper custody pending the

investigation into the offence with which he is charged or

pending an enquiry or trial. In the case of a lawful

deportation order the Magistrate can obviously pass no order

for release on bail or direct any other custody than that of

the officers who have to execute the order of deportation.

[emphasis added]

36. We are unable to accept that the appellants have any right

to secure a visa, or an extension thereof, or to continue residing in

the country after their Visas have been cancelled. In view of the

above, we do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned

order.

37. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

(VIBHU BAKHRU)

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

(C.M. POONACHA)

JUDGE

SD