Delhi High Court: In a case wherein a Writ of Habeas Corpus was filed by a Portuguese national of Indian origin who was illegally restrained and detained at Delhi Airport, the Division Bench of *Suresh Kumar Kait and *Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ. opined that the Air India Officials had no business to stop the petitioner at the Delhi Airport and therefore, the Court directed the respondents to arrange a flight for Ahmedabad for the petitioner at their own cost and to allow the petitioner to Ahmedabad with all his belongings and documents.
Background
The petitioner was of Indian origin and in 2022, passport of Republica Portuguesa was issued in favour of the petitioner and in 2023, the petitioner had surrendered the Indian Passport at the Passport Office, stating reason as “Surrender of Passport due to acquisition of citizenship of another country by the Applicant”. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for deletion of his name from the Electoral Roll of Daman and Diu Parliamentary Constituency on the ground of obtaining Citizenship from another country.
In 2023, the petitioner booked a flight to UK to meet his uncle and aunt, however, the petitioner was questioned by the Immigration Officer at Heathrow Airport, London and was refused to enter on the ground that the intention for coming to UK was not clear. Consequently, the Immigration Officer of UK issued a “Notice of Refusal of Permission to Enter” and directed officials for the removal of the petitioner through Air India Airline from UK to India. The petitioner filed an urgent request in UK to cancel “removal directions” through a legal firm namely, Philip Jones, however, despite his request no favourable action had been taken for the petitioner. The petitioner had stayed at his uncle’s place at UK and waited for the favourable order, but he had been deported to India on 17-2-2023.
Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner
The petitioner submitted that he had been illegally restrained and detained by the Air India Airline Authority/Airport Authority of India since his landing on 17-2-2023 in Delhi, India and he was also not allowed to take his connecting flight to Ahmedabad. The petitioner had not been given his luggage and basic human necessities like proper food and bed to sleep and he had been harassed by the Air India Officials on the ground that they would implicate him in false criminal case if he denied going to Portugal. Also, the petitioner’s SIM card had also been taken by the officials of Air India/Airport Authority of India. It was further submitted that on 19-2-2023, the Government of India had issued an E-Visa namely e-Tourist Visa to the petitioner which was valid till 21-3-2023.
Submissions on behalf of the Respondents
Counsel for the respondents submitted that the e-Tourist Visa was issued on 19-2-2023, whereas the petitioner entered in India on 17-2-2023 and since he had no valid document to enter India, he was not allowed to cross the Immigration Post at the Delhi Airport. Further, it was submitted that the pre-condition for e-Tourist Visa was that the validity period should be stamped on the passport upon arrival, which would be 30 days from the date of entry and this situation did not arise and therefore, the petitioner was not allowed to cross the Immigration Check Post.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that the Portuguese Passport had been issued from the Portuguese Office at Goa and the permanent address of the petitioner was mentioned as of Daman and Diu in the Indian Passport and his Date of Birth Certificate was placed on record which established that the petitioner was born in India at Daman and Diu. The Court also noted that the petitioner had been deported from UK to Ahmedabad via Delhi and therefore, the Court opined that “neither the petitioner had any intention to enter Delhi, nor the respondents had any business to stop the petitioner at the Delhi Airport”.
The Court further noted that on 17-2-2023, the petitioner did not have any valid Visa to enter India and since, he was deported from UK, therefore, he had no opportunity to apply for a Visa. However, on reaching Delhi on 17-2-2023, where he had been detained by respondents, he applied for Electronic Travel Visa (ETA) and the same was issued on 19-2-2023 which was valid up to 21-3-2023. The Court opined that neither the petitioner was aware whether the stamp was to be put on the Passport nor the respondent had any information.
The Court noted that the petitioner had already paid the travel charges from UK to Ahmedabad but could not reach his destination due to detention by the respondents, which amounted to an illegal one. Thus, the Court directed Air India Officials to arrange a flight for Ahmedabad for petitioner at their own cost.
The Court disposed of the petition and directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to Ahmedabad with all his belongings and documents and on reaching Ahmedabad, the concerned Authority at Ahmedabad might either permit the petitioner to enter India and allow to move at permissible places or take legal action, as permissible under the law and if the petitioner was released and allowed to travel in India at the permissible places, the petitioner should abide by Law and Rules, failing which the Competent Authority was at liberty to take legal action against him.
[Paras Narsi v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1026, decided on 22-2-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Advocate Mayank Wadhwa;
Advocate Abhishek Wadhwa;
Advocate Samidha Jain;
Advocate Junaid Qureshi;
Advocate Muskan Gupta;
Advocate Sristi Raichandani;
Advocate Rohit Taneja;
Advocate Shekhar Pradhan;
For the Respondents: CGSC Mukul Singh;
Standing Counsel Sanjay Lao;
Advocate Ira Singh;
Advocate Digvijay Rai;
Advocate Archit Mishra;
Advocate P. Agarwal.
*Judgment authored by: Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna.
