Giorgio Vulpitta vs Union Of India & Ors.

$~75
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
rd
% Date of Decision: September 23 , 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010169032026
+ W.P.(C) 5416/2026
GIORGIO VULPITTA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shishir Pinaki and
Mr.Dhaneswar Gudapalli,
Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, SPC
for UoI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 65573/2026 [ seeking preponement of date of hearing ]
1. This application is filed by the applicant/petitioner seeking
preponement of date of hearing of the present writ petition.
2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
writ petition is taken up for final hearing.
3. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 5416/2026
1. By the present petition, the petitioner seeks issuance of
direction to the respondent authorities to permit the petitioner to enter
India on visa on arrival.
2. In a nutshell, the case of the petitioner, as discernible from the
pleadings, is as follows:
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5416/2026 Page 1 of 6
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:26.09.2026
15:34:00

2.1. The petitioner is an Italian National who was earlier granted an
Indian e-Visa on 01.08.2024. The said visa was valid for multiple
entries. Under the applicable rules, a foreigner entering India on such
a visa may remain in the country for a continuous period of not more
than 180 days without registration. In the case of the petitioner, that
the said period was due to expire on 27.01.2025.
2.2. In anticipation of the expiry of the said period, it is the
petitioner’s case that he had booked a flight to Doha for 22.01.2025.
However, at the check-in counter at Mopa International Airport, Goa,
the airline staff noticed a handwritten correction in the spelling of his
surname, particularly the letter ‘V’, on his passport and declined to
permit him to board the flight. Consequently, the petitioner could not
leave India on 22.01.2025.
2.3. It is the petitioner’s case that he thereafter approached the
Italian Consulate, which issued him a fresh and corrected passport on
23.01.2025. The petitioner thereafter booked another flight for
28.01.2025, however, it is the petitioner’s case that on 27.01.2025, he
was informed by the Italian Consulate that since he had crossed the
180-day limit, he first needed an Exit Permit to leave India. The Exit
Permit was then issued to the petitioner on 05.02.2025 with a direction
that he leaves India within 10 days.
2.4. The petitioner left India on 08.02.2025 and thereafter returned
to India on 10.02.2025. On arrival, the petitioner was stopped at Mopa
International Airport, Goa, and, after prolonged questioning, he was
informed that he had been blacklisted and would not be permitted to
re-enter India. It is the case of the petitioner that no written order
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5416/2026 Page 2 of 6
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:26.09.2026
15:34:00

recording the blacklisting was ever given to him. The petitioner is
thereafter stated to have sent representations to the Ministry of Home
Affairs and the office of the Director (Foreigners), New Delhi,
however, no response was received.
3. In this backdrop, the petitioner has beseeched this Court to issue
a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent authorities to permit the
petitioner to enter India on visa on arrival.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
was blacklisted without any reason which is contrary to the principles
of natural justice and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. To bolster his stance, the petitioner has further placed reliance
on the case of Mohd. Javed & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.,
2019:DHC:2886-DB and prays that a direction be issued to the
respondents to grant visa on arrival to the petitioner.
5. Having heard the counsel and perused the record, this Court is
not persuaded by the stance taken by the petitioner for the following
reasons.
6. The petitioner’s claim to mandamus is destined to fail because
there is no inherent or legally enforceable right of a foreign national to
seek entry into India. The issuance of a visa is a sovereign function of
the State that is embedded in considerations of national security,
foreign policy and administrative discretion. Section 3 of the
Foreigners Act, 1946 [now repealed] as well as 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
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5416/2026 Page 3 of 6
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:26.09.2026
15:34:00

foreigners into India or, their departure therefrom or their presence or
continued presence therein. The respondent authorities can therefore
or rather are entitled to take into consideration all the relevant factors
that may warrant scrutiny.
7. In that regard, 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.
8. 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 was 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 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
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5416/2026 Page 4 of 6
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:26.09.2026
15:34:00

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.”
9. 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 ].
10. Much emphasis has been placed by the learned counsel for the
petitioner on the case of Mohd. Javed & Anr. v. Union of India &
Anr (supra) to contend that the petitioner was blacklisted without any
reason which is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and
to seek grant of visa in the present case. The reliance placed by the
petitioner on the said case, in the opinion of this Court, is misplaced as
the same stood on a different footing from the factual matrix of the
present case.
11. In the said case, the Division Bench of this Court was faced
with a scenario where the foreign national was duly married to an
Indian citizen and the couple also had two children both being Indian
citizens. The foreign national therein held a valid Long Term Visa and
she had continually been residing in India for thirteen years on a valid
visa which was also renewed from time to time. In this backdrop that
when the Long Term Visa of the foreign national was revoked and a
Leave India Notice was issued without any procedure, the Division
Bench of this Court considered whether the subsisting Long Term
Visa could have been revoked by the ministry without following any
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5416/2026 Page 5 of 6
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:26.09.2026
15:34:00

procedure. Consequently, on a conspectus of such facts, the Division
Bench of this Court had noted that the State could not have deprived
the family of the foreign national, who were Indian citizens, of their
right to life, without complying with the basic tents of natural justice
and without affording her an opportunity of hearing to answer any
matter alleged against her. The said case, therefore, is in
contradistinction to the facts of the present case and cannot be used as
a guiding principle to direct the respondent authorities to grant visa to
the petitioner herein.
12. 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
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 very dearth of any right, no writ can be issued.
13. Consequently, since the petitioner has not been able to establish
that any right vested in him has been infringed, this Court is not
inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
14. The present petition is accordingly dismissed.
15. The date already fixed i.e., 16.11.2026 stands cancelled.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
SEPTEMBER 23, 2026
DU
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 5416/2026 Page 6 of 6
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:26.09.2026
15:34:00