Now Reading: Two high courts: foreign nationals have no right to enter India
-
01
Two high courts: foreign nationals have no right to enter India
The Story in Brief
The Kerala High Court has ruled that a Pakistani national married to an Indian citizen has no vested right to demand a visa or even have a visa application processed while the government’s suspension of visa services for Pakistani nationals remains in force. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas dismissed a writ petition filed by Unaiz Kadumbottil, an Indian citizen from Wayanad, and his Pakistani wife Khadija Jabeen Khalid Hussain, who wanted to attend her brother-in-law’s wedding in India.
The court held that the regulation of entry of foreigners is a sovereign function of the Union government, rooted in national security and foreign policy. It noted that the central government suspended all visa services for Pakistani nationals after the Pahalgam attack on 22 April 2025, and that order remains in force. Separately, the Delhi High Court held on 30 September that a foreign national does not have an inherent or legally enforceable right to seek entry into India, even with a valid visa. Justice Amit Mahajan dismissed a plea by a Turkmenistan national who was denied entry in March 2026 despite holding a business visa.
Update, 2 October 2026: The Delhi High Court on 30 September ruled that a foreign national has no inherent right to enter India even with a valid visa, Live Law, ThePrint, Rediff, The Hindu and Economic Times report. The judgment, delivered by Justice Amit Mahajan in a separate case involving a Turkmenistan national, reinforces the Kerala High Court’s reasoning on sovereign discretion over immigration.
Indian Opinion Analysis
The two rulings, while factually distinct, reinforce the same legal principle: entry of a foreign national is a sovereign function, not a right. The Kerala High Court’s judgment focused on the statutory bar under the Foreigners Act following the Pahalgam attack, while the Delhi High Court examined the discretionary power of immigration authorities to deny entry even to a visa-holder based on adverse inputs and travel patterns. Both courts cited national security and administrative discretion. The uniform coverage across outlets reflects a consensus on the legal position, with no outlet challenging the reasoning. The rulings leave open the question of how courts will treat cases where the bar is not statutory but purely discretionary.
Both judgments were delivered on the same legal footing, but the Kerala case turns on a continuing government order, while the Delhi case turns on case-specific adverse intelligence.
Coverage: 9 sources, 5 neutral
Sources (9): livelaw.in, thenewsminute.com, hindustantimes.com, verdictum.in, livelaw.in (2) (neutral report), theprint.in (neutral report), rediff.com (neutral report), thehindu.com (neutral report), economictimes.indiatimes.com (neutral report)
This brief was synthesised by AI from the 9 sources linked above, so one read covers every framing they carry. Methodology and corrections.
