Telangana High Court Upholds Police Verification as Statutory Duty in Visa Compliance Case
In a significant ruling that highlights the strict legal boundaries between long-term residence and citizenship, the Telangana High Court has refused to grant relief to a 33-year-old man, apparently born in Pakistan, who has resided in Hyderabad since infancy. The court firmly held that compliance with visa regulations cannot be construed as police harassment, dismissing the petitioner's plea against alleged pressure from Hyderabad police Special Branch officials.
Petitioner's Claims and Court's Scrutiny
The petitioner, a resident of Yakutpura in Hyderabad, contended that police officials had been repeatedly visiting his home, pressuring him to obtain a long-term visa (LTV) under threat of prosecution. He insisted that these visits persisted despite his application for an LTV in July of the previous year. This requirement stems from Union Home Ministry directives issued in April 2025, following the Pahalgam terror attack, which mandated fresh applications from Pakistani nationals holding long-term visas but not Indian citizenship.
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka, presiding over the case, noted that the petitioner's initial assertion of Indian citizenship by birth was contradicted by official records. These records described him as a Pakistani national born in Karachi, with his name appearing on a Pakistani passport, and he had never been granted either an LTV or Indian citizenship. The judge emphasized, "He has not produced any conclusive statutory proof of citizenship under the Citizenship Act, and his reliance on an Aadhaar card, voter ID card, PAN card, driving licence, and educational certificates cannot, by themselves, confer or establish citizenship."
Legal Framework and Statutory Verification
The court underscored that the statutory framework governing foreigners mandates the determination of nationality based on passport, visa status, and orders passed by competent authorities under the Foreigners Act. In this context, the police action was deemed part of statutory verification and enforcement of visa regulations, not harassment or coercion. The petitioner, who holds a clerical job with a private firm, claimed to have been born and brought up in Hyderabad, living there for 31 years, married to an Indian citizen, and leading a peaceful family life as a father of two.
He argued that the police action was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of his constitutional rights, seeking directions to restrain the police from harassing him or forcing him to apply for an LTV. He contended that he had never been asked to obtain an LTV earlier and that the sudden action, without notice, disrupted his family life.
Authorities' Counterarguments and Background
Authorities contested these claims, stating that the petitioner was born in Karachi in 1991 to an Indian-origin mother married to a Pakistani national. Following marital issues, his mother returned to Hyderabad in 1994 with the petitioner, who was then only a few months old. Officials revealed that while the mother had applied for and periodically renewed her LTV, the petitioner—who entered India on his mother's Pakistani passport and a visiting visa—never obtained an LTV.
They further pointed out that in response to the Home Ministry's April 2025 directive, both the petitioner and his mother submitted LTV applications in July 2025. The court found no merit in the plea, disposing of the petition while directing the police to process these LTV applications and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the Home Ministry's prevailing guidelines at the earliest.
Implications of the Ruling
This case underscores the critical distinction between residency and citizenship under Indian law, reinforcing that documents like Aadhaar or voter IDs do not automatically confer citizenship status. The ruling serves as a reminder of the legal obligations for foreigners in India, particularly in the wake of enhanced security measures post-terror incidents. It also highlights the judiciary's role in balancing individual rights with national security concerns, ensuring that statutory procedures are followed without undue interference.
The decision may set a precedent for similar cases involving long-term residents without formal citizenship, emphasizing the importance of adhering to visa regulations and the legal processes outlined in the Foreigners Act and Citizenship Act.
