Foreigners Cannot Decide Minor & Major Infractions on Visa Validity: Bombay High Court

A division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice GS Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale has recently observed that a foreigner cannot decide minor and major infractions in a visa validity period after the petitioner was asked to leave India.

The bench observed “It is not for a foreigner to decide what constitutes a ‘minor’ infraction and what constitutes a ‘major infraction’. No foreigner gains that right only by claiming to be of Indian origin. There is no such thing as a minor or major infraction of a visa condition. There is either an infraction or there is compliance. Any person anywhere in violation of an entry and stay visa condition is liable to deportation from that country.”

The high court was hearing a plea filed by an Indian origin foreigner who was asked to leave India on 18th February and therefore he approached the Court on 15 February.

The petitioner in the plea stated that he was in violation of his visa condition previously and overstayed in India beyond the time permitted by his tourist visa by about 18 days. He, however, argued that it was a ‘minor’ infraction.

The bench expressed displeasure and said that if a person is of Indian origin then it is expected that the person adheres to the laws and regulations of India. The order read,

“We view with extreme displeasure such attempts by foreigners to claim higher rights. Nobody has given the Petitioner authority to decide which visa condition he will follow and which he will breach by calling it ‘minor’. It is worse that the Petitioner arrogates to himself the authority to decide what to follow, what to call minor, what to transgress because he is ‘of Indian origin’. Being of Indian origin is not an exemption from obeying the law. We cannot help wondering if, in his chosen country of citizenship, the United States of America, such an argument by an Indian citizen would be countenanced for a second.”

The petitioner argued that he should have been given notice and hearing. However, the court said that the court did not find why a person who violates a clear visa condition can claim such legal entitlement. The bench then said that the petitioner can leave the country and then again apply for a visa or re-entry.

The advocate for the Union submitted that if the petitioner complies with the requirement of exiting by 18th February 2023 and makes any application for re-entry or a fresh visa, the authorities will consider it on its merits.

Advocate Drishti Khurana appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Rui Rodrigues appeared on behalf of the Union of India

Case Title: Shivam Sunil Punjy vs UOI