Stephen Gary Chard vs Union Of India & Ors.

$~68
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
rd
% Date of Decision: November 03 , 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010530922026
+ W.P.(C) 16300/2026 & CM APPL. 76366/2026
STEPHEN GARY CHARD .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kartikeya Rastogi & Mr.
Joe Sebastain, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Rukmani Bobde, CGSC
with Mr. Varun Pratap Singh,
GP & Mr. Vinayak Aren, Ms.
Aishwarya Nigam, Advs. for
UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
1. By way of the present petitioner, the petitioner seeks the
following prayers :
“a) Direct the Respondents to inform the Petitioner, Mr. Stephen
Gary Chard (British Passport No. 548114290), whether his name
has been placed on any blacklist, watchlist, or entry-restriction list,
and if so, to disclose the specific reasons and grounds, the date of
commencement and the period for which such restriction shall
remain in force;
b) Allow the Petitioner to apply for a business visa and the said
application may be decided by the Respondents in a timely manner;
c) Pass any other Order, direction that this Hon'ble Court deems fit
and proper qua the facts and circumstances of the present Case in
the best interest of justice.”
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16300/2026 Page 1 of 4
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:03.11.2026
19:47:41

2. It is the case of the petitioner that his e-Business Visa application
was rejected on 07.09.2026 without assigning any specific reason, save
for indicating that he may be eligible for a regular visa. Pursuant
thereto, the petitioner applied for a regular One-Year Multiple-Entry
Business Visa before the High Commission of India, London, on
10.09.2026, however, upon collection of his passport after processing,
no visa had been granted, nor was any reason for the same
communicated to him. It is contended that, upon personally
approaching the High Commission of India, London, to enquire about
the status of his application, he was orally advised not to return to India,
without being provided any further information or clarification.
3. The petitioner apprehends that he may have been placed on a
blacklist or subjected to an entry restriction by the Indian authorities,
although no such order or restriction has ever been communicated to
him. He contends that, despite holding a valid five-year e-Tourist Visa,
he is unable to travel to India in view of the apprehension that he may
be denied entry upon arrival. The petitioner, therefore, seeks directions
to the respondents to disclose his blacklist or entry-restriction status, if
any and to decide the petitioner’s business visa application in a timely
manner.
4. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner is a foreign national. It is
well settled that 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. Reliance in
this regard is placed upon the judgment in Louis De Raedt v. Union of
India : 1991 (3) SCC 544 where the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16300/2026 Page 2 of 4
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:03.11.2026
19:47:41

“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 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.”
5. 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. The petitioner, being a foreign national, cannot claim any
right to issuance of visa or entry into this country.
6. It is also pertinent to note that the present petition has been filed
merely on the apprehension that the petitioner may have been
blacklisted from entering into this country and would be denied entry if
he travels using his e-tourist visa.
7. 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
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16300/2026 Page 3 of 4
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:03.11.2026
19:47:41

a right. In the very dearth of any right, no writ can be issued.
8. 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.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
NOVEMBER 3, 2026
“SK”
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 16300/2026 Page 4 of 4
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:03.11.2026
19:47:41