Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: In a case revolving around whether the deportation of a minor, residing in India on visa extensions and having a pending citizenship application, was carried out in accordance with due process of law, a Single Judge Bench of M.A. Chowdhary, J., while emphasising the sacrosanct human values and rights, ordered the retrieval of the individual forcibly deported to Pakistan and directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to consider his application for extension of long-term visa (LTV) as well as for the grant of Indian citizenship.
Background
The petitioner, a government teacher, travelled to Pakistan on a valid passport, where he solemnised marriage, and a son was born. On 9 October 2007, the wife and the minor child came to India on valid Pakistani documents and were granted permission to stay, which was periodically extended until 2013. After the wife’s death due to a fatal illness, the minor continued to reside in India with the petitioner. Thereafter, repeated applications were submitted to the authorities seeking extension of the child’s stay and grant of Indian citizenship on compassionate grounds, however, neither was the minor declared an Indian citizen nor was his visa extended.
Subsequently, on 29 April 2025, in the backdrop of the ongoing hostilities between India and Pakistan in the aftermath of Pahalgam Terror Attack on 22 April 2025, the petitioner’s house was raided by the police, and his son was forcibly taken away and deported to Pakistan without any information or copy of the deportation order. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner prayed for the repatriation of his son and for a direction to the respondents to grant Indian citizenship to the minor child. The petitioner alleged that the deportation was bad in the eye of the law as it did not follow the due process of law, and contended that despite multiple representations and an online application for registration of minor child under Section 5(1)(d), Citizenship Act, 1955 (Citizenship Act), no decision was taken by the authorities.
On the other hand, the respondents contended that the minor was staying in India without a valid visa and was therefore under an obligation to leave the country. It was argued that the deportation was carried out in accordance with the orders issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs and in exercise of the sovereign power of the State to regulate the entry, stay, and departure of foreigners. A “Leave India Notice” was also served upon the minor, being a Pakistani national, and at that time his visa had already expired. The respondents further submitted that the citizenship application was reflected as “not received yet” on the Ministry’s portal and would be processed in accordance with law once properly received in the Ministry.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that the partition of India and Pakistan entailed human tragedies, wherein besides being a grave loss of lives, the families were also divided. The Court highlighted that after the death of the mother, there was no one to look after the minor except his father, who was an Indian citizen, and that the child had pursued his education in India, with few visits to Pakistan to his mother’s paternal home with the parents. Further, after his mother’s death, he had never even visited Pakistan.
The Court noted that the minor had not only applied for extension of the LTV but also for the grant of Indian citizenship as his father was already an Indian citizen. The Court opined that it must pass certain directions having regard to the sacrosanct human values and rights.
Accordingly, the Court issued the following directions to the Ministry of Home Affairs to consider:
-
to retrieve the petitioner’s son pursuant to “Leave India Notice” served upon him, to pursue his application for extension of LTV and the application for citizenship filed under Section 5(1)(d), Citizenship Act; and
-
to grant citizenship in favour of petitioner’s son having been applied by him as claimed by the petitioner.
[Sajjad Ahmed v. Union of India, WP(C) No. 2460 of 2025, decided on 25-3-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Aseem Sawhney, Sr. Adv., Mohd. Shabab Malik, Tehseena Bukhari, Mohd. Kashif Malik, Khushboo Sharma, Anil Kumar &Aafia Malik, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI, Eishan Dadhichi, CGSC, Karan Sharma, CGSC and Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG.
