A foreign national cannot claim an enforceable right to obtain a visa or enter India solely because they were earlier issued a multiple-entry tourist visa or because that visa is still valid, the Delhi high court has said.
In his seven-page order issued on November 5 but released on Tuesday, a bench of justice Amit Mahajan said the issuance of a visa, refusal of entry or granting clearance at immigration is a sovereign function of the State that is embedded in considerations of national security, foreign policy and administrative discretion. The Centre is entitled to take into consideration all the relevant factors that may warrant scrutiny, he added.
The bench made the remarks while hearing a petition by a US citizen, seeking directions to the Centre to permit her entry into India.
“The petitioner, being a foreign national, cannot claim an enforceable right to be granted a visa or to be permitted entry into India merely on the basis that she had earlier been issued a multiple-entry Tourist Visa or that the said visa was stated to be valid until 27.11.2032. The possession of a visa does not, by itself, confer an absolute or unconditional right of admission into India,” it said.
In her petition, the US national said she was issued a multiple-entry tourist visa on November 28, 2022, that was supposed to be valid until November 27, 2032. She claimed that during her visits to India, she did not engage in any activity in violation of her visa conditions but during her departure from Chennai airport on January 23, 2024, immigration authorities informed her that her cumulative stay in India in 2023 had exceeded the permissible limit of 180 days.
{{/usCountry}}In her petition, the US national said she was issued a multiple-entry tourist visa on November 28, 2022, that was supposed to be valid until November 27, 2032. She claimed that during her visits to India, she did not engage in any activity in violation of her visa conditions but during her departure from Chennai airport on January 23, 2024, immigration authorities informed her that her cumulative stay in India in 2023 had exceeded the permissible limit of 180 days.
{{/usCountry}}She said that although she paid the prescribed penalty, no order or exit permit was issued to her. When she arrived at Bengaluru airport on November 4, 2024, she was denied entry and orally informed that she could return to India only after April 9, 2026.
The petitioner further submitted that she had suffered a fall at her residence in Bali, following which a hospital in Coimbatore had issued an invitation for her to apply for a Medical/AYUSH Visa to receive treatment in India. It added that her application for a 60-day e-Medical/AYUSH Visa to undergo supervised Panchakarma treatment at Vaidyagrama Ayurveda Healing Village in Coimbatore on June 6, was rejected, without any reasons assigned.
The court, however, dismissed the plea, saying: “Even otherwise, it is not the function of this Court, in exercise of judicial review, to substitute its own assessment for that of the competent authority in a matter concerning admission of a foreign national.”