The Delhi High Court recently ruled against a Pakistani woman’s appeal for a long-term visa to India, demonstrating that national security has sometimes taken precedence over personal concerns. Sheena Naz, who was married to an Indian national, went to the Bureau of Immigration to apply for a permanent visa. But after a terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) rejected her application on the grounds of security.
The government’s decision to stop granting visas to Pakistani applicants was made in accordance with Section 3(1) of the Foreigners Act 1946, which gave the Central Government the authority to control and coordinate foreigners’ entry and stay on Indian soil, according to Justice Sachin Datta, who heard the plea. Because it arises from the most pressing national security considerations and is outside the scope of a judicial lens, the Court chose not to get involved in the aforementioned order.
The Case’s Background
• In the matter of Sheena Naz & Anr v. Union of India & Ors, the petitioner went to the High Court to request that her long-term visa be issued and regularized till she received Indian citizenship. In accordance with Rule 6 of the 1992 Registration of Foreigners Rules, she further requested that the Court order the authorities to refrain from rescinding or suspending her residential permission, which was valid from March 26 to May 9. She also requested that the permit be periodically extended.
• However, a strict government order dated April 27 caused problems for her case. Following the Pahalgam terrorist assault, the Ministry of Home Affairs made the decision to immediately halt all current and upcoming visa services for Pakistani nationals. Long-term visas are likewise covered, with the exception of official, diplomatic, and medical visas, which have been restricted or canceled. Additionally, the explanations said that medical visas were valid till April 29.
Observations of the Court
• According to Justice Datta, the order made under Section 3(1) of the Foreigner’s Act 1946 was not subject to judicial review because it was imposed for national security reasons. When the executive acted on legitimate security concerns, he underlined, “Prima facie, the order issued by the Union Government… does not warrant any judicial review,” meaning the court could not become involved.
• Sensing that the Court would not consider it, the petitioner’s attorney asked for permission to withdraw the case. The Court granted the motion and dismissed the petition as withdrawn. Consequently, the order notes that the petition is withdrawn and dismissed.
Priority is given to national security.
• As a result, this case illustrates how to carefully balance the rights of individuals with the interests of the state. As the spouse of an Indian citizen, the petitioner made the request from a humanitarian and personal standpoint, but the government’s first priority in the wake of recent terrorist acts was the country’s safety and security. In these uncertain times, the government’s overall risk of providing visa services for Pakistani nationals strikes a compromise between prudence and a protective posture.
• This case also highlights the extent to which the judiciary can step in when executive policy is clearly within its purview, with national security assessments serving as the policymaker. In matters of national security, defense, and foreign policy, the judiciary has generally chosen to submit to the executive’s authority, with the latter being an area in which courts lack the institutional capacity to overrule the government’s decision.
The Role of the Legal Framework
• Crucially, the Central Government has the authority to impose orders governing foreigners’ entry into and residence in India under Section 3(1) of the Foreigners Act, 1946. At first look, the clause seems to be sufficiently expansive to provide for sweeping powers, particularly during periods of increased threat perception. In this instance, the government used its authority to revoke any visas that were already in effect and to halt the issuance of any new ones to citizens of Pakistan.
• The Foreigners Act has superseding authority over Rule 6. Therefore, based on a security assessment by a governmental authority, permits or visas may be canceled or modified.
According to the Delhi High Court’s ruling in Sheena Naz & Anr v. Union of India & Ors., national security is given first priority in immigration-related issues and associated petitions, especially in times of increased political or security crisis. Even though the petitioner must personally suffer from the ruling, it is consistent with the well recognized legal principle that prioritizes national security and interest over all other considerations.
In accordance with the Foreigners Act’s legislative powers, the government made a clear policy choice and further arguments influenced the court’s decision to decline to take up the case. The aforementioned ruling strengthens the idea that matters pertaining to foreign nationals and national security are firmly within the purview of the executive branch and should be given the respect they deserve.
With a vast collection of material on a variety of legal topics compiled by the top experts in the field, Sharks of Law provides a comprehensive legal solutions facility. You can look for a lawyer who can satisfy your legal needs for an online consultation with this law business. If you have any questions that call for legal advice, the lawyers at Sharks of Law have the requisite experience in every area.
Email:-helpdesk@sharksoflaw.com
Help Desk:-+91-88770-01993
https://www.sharksoflaw.com/blog-detail/rejection-of-visa-of-pakistani-woman-for-long-term-delhi-hc