Charnjit Singh Bains vs Union Of India & Ors.

$~56
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
rd
% Date of Decision: November 03 , 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010074352026
+ W.P.(C) 2683/2026
CHARNJIT SINGH BAINS .....Petitioner
Through: Dr. Anand Duggal, Adv.
through V.C.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC with
Ms. Ayushi Srivastava, Mr.
Kushagra Malik, Mr. Arpan
Narwal & Mr. Ujjwal Tyagi,
Advs. for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
W.P.(C) 2683/2026 , CM APPL. 76242/2026 ( for int. permission to the
petitioner to travel to and enter India on humaintarian & medical
ground ) & CM APPL. 76243/2026 ( exemption ).
1. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final
hearing today.
2. Briefly stated, the petitioner is a person of Indian origin holding
a foreign passport and holding an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) Card
issued on 15.11.2024.
3. On 07.01.2026, upon arriving at Indira Gandhi International
Airport, New Delhi, the petitioner was served with an order dated
07.01.2026, under Paragraph 6 of the Foreigners Order, 1948, refusing
him permission to land in India and directing him to leave by the first
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2683/2026 Page 1 of 4
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
21:02:03

available flight.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated
07.01.2026 is non-speaking, discloses no reasons or grounds for refusal
of entry and was passed without any prior notice or opportunity of
hearing. He further submits that his OCI registration has neither been
cancelled nor suspended under Section 7D of the Citizenship Act, 1955.
5. He submits that it was only disclosed during the present
proceedings that the petitioner has been blacklisted from entering the
country on account of being a registered child sex offender.
6. It is contended that certain criminal proceedings were initiated
against the petitioner in the United States in 2019, which culminated in
a plea of no contest in October 2022 and grant of probation without
custodial imprisonment. He contends that the said proceedings did not
involve any child/minor and he was subsequently granted permission
by the competent foreign authorities to travel to India on 15.12.2025.
7. The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submits that the
petitioner has been blacklisted from entering the country on account of
the petitioner being a registered child sex offender. He submits that
Office Memorandum dated 29.03.2023 provides that a person can be
blacklisted if he is a convicted child offender. He further submits that
the decision to blacklist an individual is within the sovereign domain of
the State and that no foreign national can claim entry into or residence
in India as a matter of right.
8. At the outset it is pertinent to note that the refusal of entry into
the country is a sovereign function of the State that is embedded in
considerations of national security, foreign policy and administrative
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2683/2026 Page 2 of 4
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
21:02:03

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 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.
9. The respondents have contended that the petitioner has been
blacklisted from entering the country as he is a registered child sex
offender in the United States of America. The material forming the
basis of such blacklisting is confidential and classified in nature and
therefore, cannot be provided to the petitioner in the interest of security
and integrity of the country.
10. 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.
11. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner does not dispute the
criminal proceedings initiated against him in the United States or the
fact that the same culminated in a plea of no contest and a sentence of
probation. His only contention is that the proceedings did not involve a
child or minor.
12. In the opinion of this Court, once the respondents have received
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2683/2026 Page 3 of 4
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
21:02:03

information that an individual has been involved in a crime of such
nature in a foreign country, they are well within their rights to prevent
such a person from setting foot on Indian soil.
13. The jurisdiction exercised by this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is extraordinary and discretionary. In the opinion
of this Court, the petitioner has failed to put forth any circumstance
warranting exercise of such jurisdiction.
14. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
15. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
16. The date already fixed stands cancelled.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
NOVEMBER 3, 2026
“SK”
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 2683/2026 Page 4 of 4
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
21:02:03