Anita Esmaeilzadeh vs Union Of India Ministry Of Home Affairs Through Its Foreign Division & Ors.

$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: November 04 , 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010241262026
+ W.P.(C) 7415/2026
ANITA ESMAEILZADEH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kartikeya Rastogi & Mr.
Joe Sebastian, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
THROUGH ITS FOREIGN DIVISION & ORS......Respondents
Through: Mr. Counsel (appearance not
given).
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 directions to the Respondents to
remove/set-aside the blacklisting Order imposed upon the Petitioner
(Iranian Passport No. U54206071) thereby allowing the Petitioner to
apply for a business visa in accordance with law.
2. Succinctly stated, it is the case of the Petitioner – Ms. Anita
Esmaeilzadeh, that she is an Iranian national, holding Passport No.
U54206071, which was valid till 09.08.2026, with permanent
residence at House No. 14, Block A, Hashemie Blv, Mashhad,
Khorasan, Iran. It is claimed that she has had a long association with
India, having first arrived in the country in October, 2016 as a student
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7415/2026 Page 1 of 6
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:06.11.2026
19:57:23

at Symbiosis International University, Pune, and subsequently got
enrolled at Aptech College, Pune, in the year 2017. It is stated that in
December, 2024, the Petitioner entered India on a Business Visa (B-2) ,
bearing No. VL2743172, which was valid till 10.06.2025, and was
interning with a company, namely, ‘ The Unscripted ’, in Hyderabad.
On 09.06.2025, the Petitioner applied for extension of her Business
Visa through the e-FRRO portal. However, upon visiting the
Foreigners Regional Registration Office ( ‘FRRO’ ), Hyderabad, on
10.06.2025, the petitioner was informed that there is no provision for
extension of a Business Visa. The petitioner, thereafter, paid a penalty
of ₹25,000/- and was granted an Exit Permit dated 26.06.2025, valid
till 10.07.2025, pursuant to which she departed from India on
07.07.2025, and travelled to Sri Lanka. While in Sri Lanka, the
Petitioner obtained a fresh six-month Tourist Visa bearing Visa No.
VL7794810 dated 09.07.2025, valid till 08.01.2026.
3. It is stated that the Petitioner, on 12.07.2025, holding a fresh
Tourist Visa, landed at Rajiv Gandhi International Airport,
Hyderabad, but was denied entry and was deported to Sri Lanka.
Then, in August, 2025, she was again denied entry without assigning
any reasons.
4. As per the Petitioner, since she was not made aware of any
blacklisting order pending against her, she had approached this Court
by way of W.P.(C) 2975/2026 , seeking directions to disclose her
blacklist status and to permit her to apply for a visa, wherein the
learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions, submitted that the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7415/2026 Page 2 of 6
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:06.11.2026
19:57:23

petitioner has been blacklisted for a period up to 07.07.2027. The said
petition was disposed of vide order dated 10.03.2026, with liberty to
the petitioner to take appropriate recourse against the blacklisting
order.
5. Pursuant thereto, the present petition has been filed.
6. In the petition, two reasons have been furnished in support of
the reliefs sought; firstly , that the Petitioner intends to set-up her
business in Goa and secondly , that, being an Iranian national, she is
unable to return to Iran owing to the prevailing situation in that
country.
7. On being pointedly asked, it has been submitted by the
Respondent/Bureau of Immigration that the Petitioner was blacklisted
for, engaging in employment/remuneration activities which were
specifically prohibited under the Business Visa Category, at the behest
of the security agency.
8. Thus, considering the totality of circumstances and the material
placed forth, the Petitioner’s claim is destined to fail because there is
no inherent or legally enforceable right of a foreign national to seek
entry into India.
9. The issuance of a visa/refusal of entry/grant of immigration
clearance is a sovereign function of the State, which is embedded in
considerations of national security, foreign policy and administrative
discretion. A foreign national cannot claim any right to the issuance of
a visa or entry into this country. Section 7 of the Immigration and
Foreigners Act, 2025 authorises the Central Government to make
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7415/2026 Page 3 of 6
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:06.11.2026
19:57:23

provisions, by an order, direction or instruction, with respect to all
foreigners, any particular foreigner or any specified class or
description of foreigners, for prohibiting, regulating or restricting the
entry of foreigners into India or their departure there from or their
presence or continued presence therein. The respondent authorities
are, therefore, entitled to take into consideration all the relevant
factors that may warrant scrutiny.
10. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Hans Muller of Nuremberg vs Superintendent,
Presidency: 1955 SCR (1) 1284 had categorically noted that the then
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.
11. 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 do not include
the right to reside and settle in this country. It was held as under:
“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
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) | 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
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7415/2026 Page 4 of 6
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:06.11.2026
19:57:23

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.”
12. A reading of the aforesaid as well as the statutory framework,
thus, makes 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] .
13. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner
overstayed in India beyond the validity of her Business Visa.
14. This Court is further satisfied with the explanation furnished by
the Respondent. The decision to blacklist a foreign national, as well as
the period for which such restriction is to operate, falls squarely within
the domain of the executive. This Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot substitute its
own assessment for that of the competent authority.
15. Even otherwise, it is also pertinent to note that the restriction
imposed upon the petitioner is not permanent and operates only up to
07.07.2027.
16. As noted above, there is no inherent or legally enforceable right
of a foreign national to seek entry into India. It is trite that the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7415/2026 Page 5 of 6
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:06.11.2026
19:57:23

extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India can be invoked only where there is a violation of
a right. In the absence of any such right, no writ can be issued.
17. Consequently, since the petitioner has not been able to establish
that any right vested in her has been infringed, this Court is not
inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
18. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
NOVEMBER 4, 2026
“SK”
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7415/2026 Page 6 of 6
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:06.11.2026
19:57:23