Delhi High Court Refuses To Advance Hearing In Plea Against Blacklisting YouTuber Karl Rock From Entering India

The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to advance the date of hearing in the plea moved by YouTube vlogger Manisha Malik, wife of New Zealand YouTuber Karl Edward Rice (popularly known as Karl Rock) seeking quashing of a blacklisting order issued against him which had prevented him from returning to India.

Justice V Kameswar Rao, who was inclined to hear the legal issue involved in the matter, was of the view that the same can only be heard on the date already fixed and not before that. 

The Court also took note of the fact that the period of the ban imposed was to expire on February 23 and that a fresh call would be taken by the Centre pursuant to the same.

The Court was dealing with an early hearing application moved in the petition by Advocate Fuzail Ayyubi appearing for the petitioner. The same was dismissed as withdrawn.

During the course of hearing, Ayyubi submitted thus:

"I am an Indian citizen. When an Indian citizen marries a foreigner, if his visa has to be cancelled, if there is anything, notice should have been given to me. I have been deprived of the present company as well as the future company."

On the other hand, Anurag Ahluwali appearing for the Centre submitted that Rock's visa was cancelled for the reason that he attempted to visit secured and restricted places. He further submitted that activities such as journalist activities or business could not be done as a part of the visa conditions.

"I don't know where to accommodate you in February. We will have it on March 21," the Court said.

Filed through Advocate Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, the plea challenges the "arbitrary and unreasonable" blacklisting of Karl Edward Rice, husband of the Petitioner, who has not been able to return to India from New Zealnd since 10.10.2020. Submitting that the denial of visa to Rice by the Respondents is unreasonable and arbitrary, the Petitioner states that by depriving her from living with her husband, her fundamental right to life and dignity under Article 21 has been violated.

The plea avers that Rice, who has a dual nationality (New Zealand and Netherlands) has been visiting India since 2013 and has strictly followed all the laws as well as the conditions of visa. Furthermore, after marriage to the Petitioner, Rice was granted an X-2 Visa which is meant for spouse/children of an Indian citizen and is set to expire of 05.05.2024.

In compliance of a condition for the X-2 Visa which compels the Petitioner's spouse to exit India every 180 days or intimate the concerned Foreign Regional Registration Office (FRRO), Rice left India on 10.10.2020, and has not been able to return to India as his application for issuance of an Indian visa is being rejected the Respondents.

"While the Petitioner has been running from pillar to post and no reasons are communicated to either Mr. Karl Edward Rice or to the Petitioner herself as to on what basis her husband's request for issuance of visa have been rejected, the Petitioner's husband was only verbally informed that he has been blacklisted and therefore he is not permitted to entire into India".

The petition goes on to argue that non-communication of grounds of blacklisting, continued silence maintained by the Respondents in response to various representations preferred by the Petitioner as well as Rice, the resulting separation of a married copy, and lack of any opportunity or notice afforded to the Petitioner or husband to indicate any violation of visa conditions, is an arbitrary abuse of power and infringes both Article 19 and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

In light of the above, the plea prays for calling of the records pertaining to cancellation of visa and unilateral blacklisting of Rice, issuance of a direction to review and quash the blacklisting as well as issue Rice's Indian visa, and grant a meaningful hearing to the Petitioner and her husband with regard to the sudden, arbitrary and unreasonable blacklisting of Rice.