“Cannot Carve Out Any Exceptions”: Delhi High Court Refuses Pakistani Citizen’s Plea Against Long-Term Visa Revocation
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Sachin Datta dismissed a writ petition seeking regularization of a Long-Term Visa and extension of a residential permit. The Court held that orders issued under Section 3(1) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, driven by serious national security considerations, do not warrant judicial review. It directed the dismissal of the petition as withdrawn, without granting any relief sought by the petitioners.
The petition was filed by two individuals seeking multiple directions against the Union of India and others. The primary relief sought was the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner no.1’s application for grant of a Long-Term Visa (LTV) bearing application number 230425E26X41 dated 23.04.2025. The petitioner no.1 is a Pakistan National married to an Indian citizen. The petition also sought to ensure that the residential permit issued to petitioner no.1, valid from 26.03.2025 till 09.05.2025, under Rule 6 of the Registration of Foreigner’s Rules, 1992, would not be revoked or suspended and would be extended periodically.
According to the record, the petitioner had duly applied for a Long-Term Visa through the Bureau of Immigration, India. However, shortly after the application was made, an order dated 25.04.2025 was issued by the Foreigners-1 Division, Ministry of Home Affairs. The said order was issued under Section 3(1) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and suspended visa services to Pakistani nationals with immediate effect.
The order stipulated that all existing valid visas issued to Pakistani nationals, except for Medical, Long Term, Diplomatic, and Official visas, were revoked effective 27.04.2025. Medical visas issued were specified to remain valid only till 29.04.2025. Additionally, no new visas were to be issued to Pakistani nationals under these categories except as stated. A table indicating the updated status of visas was annexed to the order, and the Ministry of External Affairs and Bureau of Immigration were instructed to widely publicize and comply with the directive.
This governmental action resulted in the revocation of the petitioner no.1’s visa and rendered her application for Long-Term Visa non-processable. Consequently, the petitioners approached the High Court seeking redress.
During the preliminary hearing, Justice Sachin Datta noted that the issuance of the government order was driven by national security concerns. Consequently, the Court questioned the maintainability of the petition, pointing out the limited scope for judicial interference in such matters.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s precedent in Hans Muller of Nurenburg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail, Calcutta (1955) 1 SCR 1284, where it was held that the Foreigners Act vests the Central Government with "absolute and unfettered discretion" to expel foreigners from India, the High Court highlighted the constitutional basis for such executive action.
Following the Court’s indication that it was disinclined to entertain the petition, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners sought leave to withdraw the writ petition.
Justice Sachin Datta recorded the following observations during the hearing:
“Prima facie, the aforesaid order issued under Section 3(1) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 does not warrant any judicial review given that the issuance of the same was impelled by serious national security considerations.”
The Court further stated: “It is also not within the province of this Court to carve out any exception(s) thereto.”
Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Hans Muller of Nurenburg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail, Calcutta, the Court quoted:
“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.”
In view of the above, the Court clearly conveyed that it was neither possible nor appropriate for it to create exceptions or interfere with executive orders issued under serious security concerns.
The Court acknowledged the national security-driven context behind the issuance of the order, which suspended visa services to Pakistani nationals, with specific exceptions only for Medical, Diplomatic, and Official Visas, and observed that the judicial forum was not suited to question the wisdom or necessity behind such executive measures.
Justice Datta recorded that in such matters, where the executive’s discretion is absolute and constitutionally sanctioned, judicial review is significantly circumscribed, especially in the realm of immigration and visa policies concerning foreign nationals.
The High Court concluded the matter with the following directions:
The Court stated:“In the circumstances, this Court has expressed its disinclination to entertain the present petition.”
Thereafter, noting the request of the petitioners' counsel, the Court recorded: “At this stage, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw the present petition.”
Accordingly, the Court directed: “The petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. Pending applications also stand disposed of.”
Thus, no relief was granted to the petitioners. The challenge to the revocation of the visa and the prayer for regularization of stay stood dismissed upon withdrawal.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Zahid Hanief, Ms. Shazia Kidwai, Ms. Nazia Parveen, Advocates
For the Respondents: Ms. Nidhi Raman, Central Government Standing Counsel along with Mr. Arnav Mittal, Advocate
Case Title: Sheena Naz & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Neutral Citation: Not specified in the document
Case Number: W.P.(C) 5480/2025, CM APPLs. 25006/2025, 25007/2025, 25008/2025
Bench: Justice Sachin Datta
[Read/Download order]
