Safiya Malik

The High Court of Telangana Single Bench of Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka declined to grant relief to a man who claimed Indian citizenship by birth and sought directions restraining the police and immigration authorities from compelling him to apply for a Long Term Visa (LTV). The petitioner alleged that officials repeatedly visited his residence and pressured him to regularise his status through an LTV process. The Court held that identity and related records such as Aadhaar, voter ID, PAN, driving licence and educational certificates cannot, by themselves, establish citizenship, particularly when official records indicate foreign nationality and statutory verification is underway. Disposing of the petition, it directed the authorities to consider the LTV applications already submitted and pass appropriate orders as early as possible.

The petitioner challenged the conduct attributed to the third respondent (Inspector of Police, Pakistan Branch), alleging repeated visits to his residence, pressure to apply for a Long Term Visa (LTV), and threats of prosecution without issuance of notice, and sought directions restraining such action.

Also Read: Stem Cell Therapy Not Allowed As Routine Treatment For Autism, Permitted Only In Clinical Trials: Supreme Court

He asserted that he was born in Hyderabad, had been residing there continuously for the last 31 years, was married to an Indian citizen, and claimed Indian citizenship by birth. He also contended that no notice had been issued to him since 1994 requiring him to apply for an LTV, and invoked Articles 5, 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

In response, the third respondent filed a counter-affidavit and written instructions referring to a Memorandum dated 04.06.2025 and a Government of India Order dated 28.04.2025 concerning Pakistani nationals holding LTVs and requiring fresh LTV applications. The respondents relied on official records, including passport-related particulars, and stated that verification had been initiated regarding the documents relied on by the petitioner.

The Court stated that “From a perusal of the material on record, it is to be seen, petitioner’s claim of Indian citizenship by birth is disputed on the basis of official records relied upon by respondents, which indicate that petitioner was recorded as a Pakistani national born in 1991 at Karachi, Pakistan, whose name was included in a Pakistani passport and who has never been granted any LTV or citizenship status.”

It recorded that “He has not produced any conclusive statutory proof of citizenship under the Citizenship Act, 1955, such as a certificate of registration, naturalization, or a valid Indian passport.”

The Court observed, “The reliance placed by petitioner on Aadhaar Card, Voter ID Card, PAN Card, Driving Licence and educational certificates cannot, by themselves, confer or establish citizenship, particularly when the statutory framework governing foreigners mandates determination of nationality based on passport, visa status, and orders passed by competent authorities under the Foreigners Act, 1946.”

It further stated, “The counter affidavit discloses that verification has been initiated with the concerned authorities regarding such documents, which cannot be construed as illegal or arbitrary.”

On the plea of natural justice, the Court recorded, “The plea of violation of principles of natural justice is also not substantiated, inasmuch as the actions complained of are part of an ongoing statutory verification and compliance process initiated pursuant to Memorandum No. SB(I) No.136/F9/HYD/1994-2025/1929 dated 04.06.2025 and Government of India Order No.25022/28/2025-F.1 dated 28.04.2025 which mandates that all the Pakistani nationals, holding LTVs. and not obtained an Indian citizenship, shall apply afresh LTVs application form.”

The Court also stated, “The visits by officials, in the facts pleaded by the respondents, were for ensuring compliance with visa regulations applicable to Pakistani nationals and cannot be equated with coercive or punitive action without due process.”

Regarding the relief sought, it recorded, “In such circumstances, petitioner, whose status is derivative and disputed, cannot seek a blanket declaration restraining the statutory authorities from performing their duties under the Foreigners Act, 1946, the Foreigners Order, 1946, and the Visa Manual, 2019.”

The Court further noted, “It shows that there are discrepancies in the identity particulars.” and stated, “The allegation that no notice was ever issued to petitioner for the last 30 years cannot override the statutory obligation cast upon the authorities to act when discrepancies or violations come to light, particularly in the context of fresh Government Orders such as No.25022/28/2025-F.1 dated 28.04.2025.”

Also Read: Agricultural Income Exemption Extends To Tissue-Cultured Plant Sales: Telangana High Court

The Court directed: “respondents are directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the guidelines issued in that regard, as early as possible. With the said direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Smt. G. Uma Rani

Case Title: Syed Ali Hussain Razvi v. The Government of Telangana
Neutral Citation:
Case Number: WRIT PETITION No. 25501 OF 2025
Bench: Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka