HC quashes FRRO order asking Taiwanese law student to leave India

Court also directs FRRO to grant the 34-year-old a registration certificate and pass appropriate orders within six weeks, while permitting him to continue his studies in India in the meantime

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday quashed an exit permit issued to a Taiwanese national pursuing an LLB course at the Government Law College (GLC) in Mumbai, holding that the authorities had acted arbitrarily by ordering him to leave India despite his valid student visa.

The Bombay High Court also directed the FRRO to grant the 34-year-old a registration certificate and pass appropriate orders within six weeks, while permitting him to continue his studies in India in the meantime (HT Photo)

A division bench comprising acting chief justice Ravindra Ghuge and justice Gautam Ankhad also directed the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) to grant the 34-year-old law student a registration certificate and pass appropriate orders within six weeks, while permitting him to continue his studies in India in the meantime.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Wu Jyun Lin, a Taiwanese national, who challenged the FRRO’s exit permit issued to him in February, directing him to leave India.

Wu had initially come to India on an employment visa to work for a tyre manufacturer in Gujarat. While working, he enrolled in some online courses before securing admission to the GLC’s three-year LLB programme in 2024. In July 2025, he quit his job, returned to Taiwan, applied for a student visa, and came back to India in August 2025 after completing the prescribed formalities.

The Taiwanese then submitted an application for a registration certificate with the FRRO within 14 days of his arrival in India. However, his application was denied without any reason given, according to his petition. He was later also told to pay a penalty of ₹50,000 before being issued an exit permit, asking him to leave the country.

The FRRO argued that Wu, while holding an employment visa, could not pursue academic programmes without either obtaining prior permission from the authorities or informing them. Stating that his action constitutes a “fundamental breach of the conditions of the employment visa”, the FRRO argued that the issuance of an exit permit was within the regulatory framework.

Senior advocate Mihir Desai, appearing for the student, contended that his client has complied with all the requirements for a student visa and no longer intends to undertake employment in India. Desai added that the FRRO’s failure to issue Wu a registration certificate, coupled with the issuance of an exit permit, prejudices his client’s ability to return to India on a valid student visa and would adversely affect his education.

The court held that Wu did not violate any of his employment visa conditions, as there was no prohibition on simultaneously pursuing education. It noted that he resigned from his job, returned to Taiwan, and lawfully obtained a fresh student visa, which was verified by the Indian embassy in Taiwan.

The bench also noted that Wu has not been involved in any criminal case, has not violated any conditions of his student visa, and has not taken up employment after returning to India.

Stating that being asked to leave India would seriously disrupt the petitioner’s education, the bench quashed and set aside the exit permit issued by the FRRO and permitted Wu to remain in India and continue his education, subject to strict compliance with conditions of the students visa.