Centre Has Absolute Power To Expel Foreigners Who Overstay: Karnataka HC Dismisses Plea By Alleged Bangladeshi Spy Challenging 'Exit Permit'
The Karnataka High Court has said that the power of Government of India to expel nationals of other countries who overstay in the nation without any document is absolute and unfettered.A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed a petition filed by a Bangladeshi national Raktima Khanum who had questioned the issuance of exit permit to her by the Foreigners Regional...
The Karnataka High Court has said that the power of Government of India to expel nationals of other countries who overstay in the nation without any document is absolute and unfettered.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed a petition filed by a Bangladeshi national Raktima Khanum who had questioned the issuance of exit permit to her by the Foreigners Regional Registration Office, which would result in her deportation to Bangladesh. It said,
“Any indulgence shown to the petitioner, on any kind of sympathy, would be putting fetters on the discretion of the Government, the FRRO and the Bureau of Immigration, more so in cases where there is even a semblance of threat to national security of any kind.”
It added that matters relating to entry, stay, transit and exit of foreign nationals is governed by the provisions of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920, Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939, Foreigners Act, 1946, the Immigration (Carrier Liability) Act, 2000 8 and the Citizenship Act, 1955 and the Rules in furtherance of the aforesaid enactments.
The petitioner claimed that through social media she came in contact with one Janardhana Reddy, they got married on 25-12-2017 and then lived in Chennai. She was issued an entry visa (X-2 dependent visa) on 1-03-2019. On its expiry in February 2020, the petitioner was granted six months extension and then another 9 months extension thereafter. On 21-06-2023 when Petitioner sought another extension, the FRRO demanded certain documents like an undertaking from the spouse in support of her stay in India. On failure to produce the same, an exit permit was issued against her.
The petitioner contended that her husband neglected her and therefore, her visa should be extended without his consent.
The authorities however opposed the plea citing "confidential reports" indicating that Petitioner was involved in counter terrorism and has links with Special Services Group which in turn has links with the army of the neighbouring nation. It was submitted that the visa manual clearly indicates that if there is any suspicion, extension of visa will not be granted, particularly of entry X-2 visa. Petitioner cannot contend that she has a right to stay in India, despite there being adverse information against her, it was argued.
Court noted that Petitioner had sought conversion of her visa. It said there are three necessary conditions for such conversion, "one of which is a report about marital status including his or her antecedents and confirmation about their living together and security clearance."
In this case however, Court noted that Petitioner initiated maintenance proceedings against her husband only after the FRRO sought mandatory documents from her. Moreover, it noted that a plethora of record from WhatsApp, Facebook and other social media platform were placed on record showing petitioner's conversations with the head or members of SSG.
“Perusal of the original records, as observed hereinabove, leaves none in doubt that the actions of the petitioner in India are suspicious. Therefore, retention of the petitioner on any sympathy being shown on the submission that she is now left in the lurch by the 4th respondent – husband, would pose a serious threat to the security of the nation.”
Further it remarked “It is rather surprising that when FRRO has all the information about the antecedents of the petitioner, strangely they are worried about payment of fee to send the petitioner out from the soil of the nation. Therefore, the FRRO or the Bureau of migration, as the case would be, without brooking any delay must act swiftly and execute the exit permit.”
Accordingly, Court dismissed the petition with direction to the FRRO to execute the exit permit without insisting on any fee from the petitioner.
Appearance: Advocate Dore Raj.B.H for Petitioner.
Deputy Solicitor General H. Shanthi Bhushan, for 1 and 2.
Additional Government Advocate Navya Shekhar, for R3.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 35
Case Title: Raktima Khanum AND Union of India & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 26769 OF 2023