Georgia Lee Putnam vs Union Of India & Ors.

$~71
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: November 5 , 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010540242026
+ W.P.(C) 16596/2026
GEORGIA LEE PUTNAM .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nilotpal Datta, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ayush Gaur, SPC with Ms.
Ridhi Kapoor, Ms. Shivranjani
& Ms. Sonal Arun, Advs. for
respondents.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: -
“(a) issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents
to disclose whether any adverse entry, restriction, record,
order or other similar action presently operates against
the Petitioner in relation to the grant of an Indian visa or
entry into India and, if so, its nature, basis and duration;
(b) issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents,
upon such disclosure and after affording the Petitioner a
reasonable opportunity to be heard, in person or through
counsel, to review the measure and to decide her
representation dated 03.09.2026 by a reasoned order
communicated to her within such reasonable period fixed
by this Hon’ble Court;
(c) issue a writ of mandamus directing the concerned
Respondents to withdraw any measure not sustained upon
review and give effect to that decision in the immigration
records and, if no such measure presently operates, to
correct, remove or modify any immigration record
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16596/2026 Page 1 of 7
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
16:30:15

continuing to reflect it, in accordance with law;
(d) issue a writ of mandamus directing the concerned
Respondents to duly consider the Petitioner’s subsequent
visa applications and consequent permission to enter
India in accordance with law, without treating the
measure so withdrawn or the record so corrected,
removed or modified as an impediment following such
withdrawal, correction, removal or modification; and
(e) pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case.”
2. Succinctly stated, the petitioner is a citizen of the United States
of America and a lawful resident of Indonesia. It is her case that she
was issued a Tourist Visa on 28.11.2022, valid until 27.11.2032. The
petitioner claims that during her visits to India she was not involved in
any activity in violation of the conditions of her visa. At the time of
her departure interview at Chennai Airport, on 23.01.2024, the
petitioner was informed by the immigration authorities that her
aggregate presence in India during the calendar year 2023 exceeded
the permissible period of 180 days. Though she paid the penalty
amount, no order or Exit Permit was issued. Thereafter, when the
petitioner arrived at Bengaluru Airport on 04.11.2024, she was refused
entry into India and was orally informed that she could return after
09.04.2026. As per her, no written order or reasons for such refusal
were communicated to her.
3. The petitioner further states that, she suffered a fall at her home
in Bali, and Coimbatore hospital issued an invitation for the
Petitioner’s application for Medical/AYUSH Visa so that she could
receive treatment in India. On 06.06.2026, she applied for a sixty-day
e-Medical/AYUSH Visa for the purpose of receiving supervised
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16596/2026 Page 2 of 7
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
16:30:15

Panchakarma treatment at Vaidyagrama Ayurveda Healing Village,
Coimbatore. The said application was rejected by an email dated
08.06.2026, without communicating any reasons. It is her case that,
despite subsequent correspondence with the concerned authorities and
a representation addressed to the Respondents seeking disclosure and
review of any subsisting adverse immigration measure, no decision
has been communicated to her.
4. Petitioner, a foreign national, essentially seeks issuance of
directions to secure her return to India.
5. The petitioner’s claim is destined to fail as there is no inherent
or legally enforceable right of a foreign national to seek entry into
India.
6. The issuance of a visa/ refusal of entry/ granting clearance of
immigration is a sovereign function of the State that is embedded in
considerations of national security, foreign policy and administrative
discretion. Section 7 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025
authorises the Central Government to make provisions, either
generally or with respect to all foreigners, for prohibiting, regulating
or restricting the entry of foreigners into India or, their departure
therefrom or their presence or continued presence therein. The
respondent authorities can therefore or rather be entitled to take into
consideration all the relevant factors that may warrant scrutiny.
7. The Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 further requires a
foreigner seeking to enter India to possess a valid passport or travel
document and a valid visa. At the same time, the statutory scheme
expressly contemplates circumstances in which, notwithstanding
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16596/2026 Page 3 of 7
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
16:30:15

possession of the requisite travel documents, a foreigner may not be
permitted to enter India on the grounds specified therein, including
considerations relating to national security, sovereignty and integrity
of India, relations with a foreign State and public health, besides such
other grounds as may be specified by the Central Government.
8. The statutory scheme further contemplates an examination by
the Immigration Officer of the passport, travel document and visa of a
foreigner at the stage of entry and empowers the Immigration Officer
to require such information as may be necessary and appropriate. The
statutory framework, therefore, does not treat the possession of a visa
as creating an absolute and unconditional right of admission into
India.
9. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Hans Muller Of Nurenburg vs Superintendent,
Presidency : 1955 SCR (1) 1284 had categorically noted that the
Foreigners Act, 1946 vested the Central Government with an absolute
and unfettered discretion and since there is no provision fettering this
discretion in the Constitution, an unrestricted right to expel remained.
10. Subsequently, in the case of Louis De Raedt v. Union of India :
1991 (3) SCC 544 , the Hon’ble Apex Court affirmed that the
fundamental rights of a foreigner are confined to Article 21 of the
Constitution of India in relation to life and liberty and did not include
the right to reside and settle in this country. It was noted as follows: -
“13. The next point taken on behalf of the petitioners, that
the foreigners also enjoy some fundamental rights under
the Constitution of this country, is also of not much help to
them. The fundamental right of the foreigner is confined
to Article 21 for life and liberty and does not include the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16596/2026 Page 4 of 7
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
16:30:15

right to reside and settle in this country, as mentioned in
Article 19(1)(e), which is applicable only to the citizens of
this country. It was held by the Constitution Bench in
Hans Muller of Nurenburg v. Superintendent, Presidency
Jail, Calcutta [(1955) 1 SCR 1284: AIR 1955 SC 367:
1955 Cri LJ 876] that the power of the government in
India to expel foreigners is absolute and unlimited and
there is no provision in the Constitution fettering this
discretion. It was pointed out that the legal position on
this aspect is not uniform in all the countries but so far
the law which operates in India is concerned, the
executive government has unrestricted right to expel a
foreigner. So far the right to be heard is concerned, there
cannot be any hard and fast rule about the manner in
which a person concerned has to be given an opportunity
to place his case, and it is not claimed that if the authority
concerned had served a notice before passing the
impugned order, the petitioners could have produced some
relevant material in support of their claim of acquisition
of citizenship, which they failed to do in the absence of a
notice.”
10. The reading of the aforesaid as well as the statutory framework,
thus, make it abundantly clear that the entry of a foreign national in
India is not a matter of enforceable right against the State but a matter
of sovereign discretion [Ref. Randa Chehab v. Union of India & Ors
: 2023:DHC:9126].
11. Thus, in the present case, the petitioner, being a foreign national,
cannot claim an enforceable right to be granted a visa or to be
permitted entry into India merely on the basis that she had earlier been
issued a multiple-entry Tourist Visa or that the said visa was stated to
be valid until 27.11.2032. The possession of a visa does not, by itself,
confer an absolute or unconditional right of admission into India. The
petitioner’s reliance upon her medical circumstances and the purpose
for which she seeks to travel to India, though noted, would not alter
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16596/2026 Page 5 of 7
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
16:30:15

the legal position in this regard.
12. The reliefs sought in the present petition, though couched in
terms of disclosure of the existence and particulars of any adverse
immigration measure and consideration of the representation made by
the petitioner, ultimately seek to facilitate her entry into India. The
petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any inherent or legally
enforceable right to seek such entry.
13. Even otherwise, it is not the function of this Court, in exercise of
judicial review, to substitute its own assessment for that of the
competent authority in a matter concerning admission of a foreign
national.
14. It is also trite that the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked only
where existing rights are violated.
15. Insofar as the prayer seeking disclosure of any blacklisting
measure etc./prohibition on entry and adjudication of her
representation is concerned, the Respondent is directed to furnish the
requisite information regarding the same, subject to any permissible
restriction on disclosure under the applicable law and decide the
representation, in accordance with law.
16. It is, however, clarified that this direction shall not be construed
as an expression of opinion on the validity or legality of any such
order or measure, if in existence, nor shall the Respondents be
understood to be under any obligation to grant a visa or permit the
petitioner to enter India merely on account of the aforesaid
representation.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16596/2026 Page 6 of 7
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
16:30:15

14. The present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along
with pending application(s), if any.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
NOVEMBER 5, 2026
“SK”
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16596/2026 Page 7 of 7
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
16:30:15