Karnataka High Court Clarifies Visa Rights for Foreign Nationals
The Karnataka High Court has made a significant observation regarding the rights of foreign nationals in India, stating that they have no legal entitlement to demand the grant or renewal of a visa. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the state is not obligated to provide reasons for denying such visa applications. This ruling came as the court dismissed a writ appeal filed by two Nigerian nationals who had challenged earlier decisions related to their visa cancellations and movement restrictions.
Case Background and Parties Involved
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Poonacha presided over the appeal filed by Obinna Jeremiah Okafor and John Adewagh Vandefan. These individuals had initially filed a petition before a single bench, challenging a movement restriction order issued by authorities on December 23, 2024. The order had directed them to be placed at the Aasare Foundation Trust in Laggere, Bengaluru. On August 14, 2025, the single bench dismissed their petition, leading to this appeal.
It is noteworthy that a third petitioner, Cyril Udoka Odigbo, who was allegedly impersonating a Nigerian national and BBA student from Rayat Bahra University in Mohali, did not participate in the appeal proceedings. Okafor claimed to be a BCom student at Sree Omkar College of Commerce and Management in Sathanur, Bengaluru, while Vandefan stated that he came to India on a student visa to pursue an MSc in Computer Sciences at Karpagam Academy of Higher Education in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, and was in the process of transferring to an institution in Bengaluru.
Legal Arguments Presented
The appellants contended that the actions taken by the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law and protection of life and personal liberty. They argued that the movement restriction order, issued under Section 3(2)(e) of the Foreigners Act-1946 and Section 11(2) of the Foreigners Order-1948, should be set aside due to alleged violations of natural justice principles.
Specifically, they alleged that their visas were cancelled without providing them with a copy of the cancellation order or prior notice, thereby depriving them of an opportunity to present their defence. In response, H Shanthi Bhushan, the deputy solicitor general representing FRRO Bengaluru, and KS Harish, the government advocate for RT Nagar police, submitted that the central government possesses absolute and unfettered discretion to expel foreigners from India.
They cited the Supreme Court decision in Louis De Raedt v Union of India, reinforcing that Article 19 of the Constitution guarantees rights only to citizens, not foreigners. This legal precedent played a crucial role in the court's deliberations.
Court's Observations and Ruling
The division bench noted that the single bench had dismissed the original petition because the petitioners' visas were cancelled, rendering further examination of the movement restriction order's fairness unnecessary. While the appellants were accused of involvement in drug peddling, the bench observed that this allegation lacked conclusive evidence. Similarly, regarding claims of a fake passport, no proof was presented to establish that such a passport had ever been seized.
Referring to the Immigration and Foreigners Act-2025, which repealed the earlier Foreigners Act, the bench highlighted that Sections 3 and 7 empower the central government to issue expulsion orders for any foreigner, and compliance is mandatory. The court firmly pointed out that rights under Article 19(1)(d) and 19(1)(e) of the Constitution, such as the right to move freely and reside anywhere in India, are exclusively available to Indian citizens, not foreigners.
Considering that the appellants' visas had expired over time, the division bench chose not to delve into the validity of the movement restriction order. In its concluding remarks, the bench stated, "We are unable to accept that the appellants have any right to secure a visa, or an extension thereof, or to continue residing in the country after their visas were cancelled. In view of the above, we do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned order." Consequently, the writ appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the legal stance on foreign nationals' visa rights in India.
