Delhi High Court: Petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging her deportation from Trivandrum, Kerala Airport on 28-11-2022 as arbitrary, unreasonable, illegal, and unconstitutional. Subramonium Prasad, J.*, held that collecting money ostensibly for charitable activity was not permitted when a foreigner comes to India on a business visa. The Court opined that since petitioner had acted contrary to what was permitted, the decision taken by the authorities to blacklist petitioner could not be said to be arbitrary.
Background
Petitioner was a professional yoga teacher and had a Master’s Degree in Global Health from Western University in USA. Petitioner was also a licensed Physician Assistant in Montana, USA and was teaching yoga in USA since 2002 and had incorporated the company under the business style name “Ashtanga Yoga School of Montana” in Montana, USA. It was stated that petitioner was deeply inspired by the Indian culture and society, and she was also involved in various charitable activities. Petitioner submitted that she was on a valid visa issued by the Consulate General of India, Indian High Commission, San Francisco, USA.
Petitioner obtained a business visa valid from 20-06-2019 to 19-06-2024. She came to India and incorporated a private limited company, namely, Oceanview Homestay and Yoga Centre Private Limited in Trivandrum, Kerala as a promoter director. Petitioner helped victims by raising funds at the time of the cyclone Amphan which created havoc in the eastern parts of the country in 2020. Further, petitioner incorporated a non-profit organization in the State of Montana, USA, namely, ‘India Water Project Inc.’ under the tax law provision 501(c)(3) in USA which was applicable for religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes.
Petitioner arrived at Trivandrum, Kerala on 28-11-2022 and immediately on her arrival, she was deported back to Chicago, USA without any reason. Petitioner submitted that she was being denied entry into India for undisclosed reasons and that her deportation from India was completely arbitrary and for no valid reason.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that petitioner was issued the following visas by the Consulate General of India, San Francisco, i.e., T-1 Visa valid from 31-03-2017 to 30-03-2027; and B-1 Visa valid from 20-06-2019 to 19-06-2024. The Court further noted that petitioner had again applied for a tourist visa on 15-12-2022 which was rejected, as her name was found in the adverse/banned list entry of the Ministry of Home Affairs.
The Court noted that the Status Report revealed that petitioner’s name was blacklisted at the behest of Foreigners Regional Registration Office (‘FRRO’), Trivandrum dated 11-08-2020 as she was involved in public fund collection while visiting on a business visa which was not permitted. The Court stated that as per the General Policy Guidelines Relating to Indian Visa, when a person was granted a business visa, the purpose was to attend business meetings and technical meetings and funds could not be collected for the said purpose.
The issue for consideration before this Court was “whether the violation of the conditions of the business visa could be a sufficient reason for deportation and blacklisting of petitioner?”.
The Court observed that the business visa as per the FAQs on business visa was granted to foreigners for the following purposes:
-
Foreign nationals who wish to visit India to establish industrial/business venture or to explore possibilities to set up industrial/business venture in India.
-
Foreign nationals coming to India to purchase/sell industrial products or commercial products or consumer durables.
-
Foreign nationals coming to India for technical meetings/discussions, attending Board meetings or general meetings for providing business services support.
-
Foreign nationals coming to India for recruitment of manpower.
-
Foreign nationals who are partners in the business and/or functioning as Directors of the company.
-
Foreign nationals coming to India for consultations regarding exhibitions or for participation in exhibitions, trade fairs, business fairs etc.
-
Foreign buyers who come to transact business with suppliers/ potential suppliers at locations in India, to evaluate or monitor quality, give specifications, place orders, negotiate further supplies etc., relating to goods or services procured from India.
-
Foreign experts/specialists on a visit of short duration in connection with an ongoing project with the objective of monitoring the progress of the work, conducting meetings with Indian customers and/or to provide technical guidance.
-
Foreign nationals coming to India for pre-sales or post-sales activity not amounting to actual execution of any contract or project.
-
Foreign trainees of multinational companies/corporate houses coming for in-house training in the regional hubs of the concerned company located in India.
-
Foreign students sponsored by AIESEC for internship on project-based work in companies/industries.
The Court thus held that collecting money ostensibly for charitable activity was not permitted when a foreigner comes to India on a business visa. The Court opined that since petitioner had acted contrary to what was permitted, the decision taken by the authorities to blacklist petitioner could not be said to be arbitrary.
The Court relied on Kasha Elizabeth Vande v. Ministry of Home Affairs, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 9920 and opined that this Court was not inclined to interfere with the decision of blacklisting of petitioner. The Court further relied on Louis De Raedt v. Union of India, 1991 (3) SCC 554 wherein the Supreme Court while explaining the applications of fundamental rights to foreigners visiting India had observed that “the fundamental right of the foreigner was confined to Article 21 for life and liberty and did not include the right to reside and settle in this country, as mentioned in Article 19(1)(e), which was applicable only to the citizens of this country. The power of the Government in India to expel foreigners was absolute and unlimited and there was no provision in the Constitution fettering this discretion.”.
The Court dismissed the writ petition and held that as petitioner was not able to establish violation of any rights granted to her, this Court was not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere with the authorities’ decision.
[Randa Chehab v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 8071, decided on 18-12-2023]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Subramonium Prasad
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Anand Duggal, Advocate
For the Respondent: Shoumendu Mukherji, Senior Panel Counsel; Reshesh Mani Tripathi, G.P.; Megha Sharma, Akanksha Gupta, Advocates
Buy Constitution of India HERE
