Foreign Nationals Cannot Execute Special Power Of Attorney For Filing Writ Petitions Before Indian Courts: Karnataka High Court

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by Sagad Kareem Ismael a native of Iraq who had approached the court through SPA with a prayer directing the respondents to consider the Visa application dated 22-02-2024 and grant him an entry for his medical treatment into the country.

The court held “The power of attorney is admittedly executed invoking the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882. The Act nowhere permits a foreign national to sit somewhere in the globe, execute a power of attorney invoking the Act and seek to get entertainment of a petition or a case before any courts in India. The petitioner is wanting to do what the Act does not permit him to do.”

It added, “Such power of attorneys which are executed by foreign nationals invoking the Act cannot be recognized, and is sans countenance.”

The petitioner argued that the petitioner is forced to represent himself through the SPA holder as he is not able to travel to India on account of no Visa being granted on consideration of his application. Both the petitioner and the SPA holder have passports of their respective countries and they are in subsistence.

Further, it was stated the petitioner has no other go but to take treatment for his illness since the doctor at Aster, CMI Hospital on examining the report of the petitioner has opined that the treatment initially for three months should be taken which may be extended. Thus a medical visa is sought.

The Union of India opposed the plea saying that the petitioner, an Iraqi national, first visited India in the year 2012 on a student Visa, to study B-Pharma in two colleges in Bangalore. He is said to have completed that course in 2017 and departed India in 2017 after overstaying for 11 months. Since he has overstayed, his name has been placed on the blacklist with retention till 22.05.2019.

Further, he has again attempted to travel to India on 03.11.2017 on a medical attendant Visa. He was refused entry. He had approached this Court in W.P.No.7696 of 2020. That petition is still pending in the stage of office objection.

It was submitted that all is not well that the intention of the petitioner, a citizen of Iraq is to enter into this country time and again on medical attendant Visa or medical Visa for bona fide purpose. Since the name of the petitioner is on the blacklist, no Visa can be granted to him, particularly on an application made by his SPA holder for the purpose, it was stated.

Findings:

The bench on going through the records noted that due to him overstaying for 11 months without any reason in 2017, his name was placed on the blacklist and he was prohibited from entering India till 22.05.2019. Despite this, the petitioner attempted to travel to India on the strength of a medical attendant Visa, a different kind of Visa that permits a person to be an attendant to a holder of a medical Visa. His entry was again refused as his name was on the retention list till 22.05.2019.

It was noted that he again secured a medical Visa during the COVID-19 pandemic, and entered India on that Visa on 02.12.2019, stayed in India up to 18.12.2021 on the said medical Visa, and departed India when an exit permit was again forced to be issued on him.

The Court said, “The documents further reveal that when the exit permit was being processed, it was noticed that the petitioner removes the Visa sticker for medical attendant Visa from pages 14 and 15 in his current passport and communication to him being refused due to blacklisting.”

Further, it held that the documents revealed that the name of the petitioner in the earlier passport and applications for the grant of Visa was Sajjad Kareem Ismael and that when the petitioner secured a new passport,  his name changed from Sajjad Kareem Ismael to Sagad Kareem Ismael.

Then it observed “All these maze of falsities that are projected by the Union of India and suppression of these materials by the petitioner would undoubtedly lead to dismissal of the petition with imposition of exemplary costs. Since the petitioner is represented by another person who would not be aware of these factors, this Court is holding its hands on imposition of exemplary costs.”

Following this, the Court held that the petitioner entered India on two occasions and on both occasions on a medical Visa and a medical attendant Visa, after initially entering on a student Visa. Court said that since he was placed on a blacklist for overstaying, and has been deported on issuance of an exit permit, no relief can be granted to him.

Dismissing the petition the court said, “Foreign Regional Registration Officer of FRRO should cautiously deal with such applications as the petitioner has been granted medical Visa not once but twice when he has overstayed for more than two years and should not also blindly look into an opinion from the hospital and grant such Visas as bona fides of the petitioner or the persons like the petitioners are always a suspect.”

Appearance: Advocate Appu Kumar for Petitioner

Deputy Solicitor General of India H.Shanthi Bhushan for Respondent

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 272

Case Title: Sagad Kareem Ismael AND Union of India & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 11952 OF 2024