01Facts
The petitioner, a British national, stated that his e-Business Visa application was rejected on 7 September 2026, with an indication that he could apply for a regular visa.
pp. 1–2He applied for a one-year multiple-entry business visa on 10 September 2026, but it was not granted and no reason was communicated.
pp. 1–2He further stated that an official at the Indian High Commission in London orally advised him not to return to India.
pp. 1–2Apprehending that he had been blacklisted or placed under an entry restriction, he sought disclosure of any such restriction and a direction for timely consideration of his business visa application.
pp. 1–202Issues
i.Whether a foreign national may claim an enforceable right to be issued a visa or permitted entry into India.
pp. 3–4ii.Whether the petitioner’s apprehension of blacklisting or entry restriction, without an established infringement of a right, warranted relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
pp. 3–403Law Applied
Article 21 protects a foreign national’s life and personal liberty, but does not confer a right to reside or settle in India; Article 19(1)(e) applies to citizens.
pp. 2–3The Court relied on Louis De Raedt v. Union of India, 1991 (3) SCC 544, which affirmed that the Indian executive has an unrestricted power to expel foreigners and that the manner of affording a hearing depends on the circumstances.
pp. 2–3The Court further held that visa issuance, refusal of entry, and immigration clearance are sovereign functions involving national security, foreign policy, and administrative discretion, and that Article 226 relief requires an established violation of a right.
pp. 3–404Reasoning
The petitioner’s claims rested on the rejection of his visa applications, the oral advice allegedly given at the High Commission, and his apprehension that he might be denied entry if he travelled on his e-Tourist Visa.
pp. 3–4The Court treated visa issuance and entry clearance as matters of sovereign discretion and held that a foreign national has no inherent or legally enforceable right to a visa or entry.
pp. 3–4Because the petitioner had not established that a right vested in him had been infringed, his apprehension alone did not justify the Court’s intervention under Article 226.
pp. 3–405Holding
The Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 and dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner had not established an infringement of any right.
p. 4No direction was issued to disclose any blacklist or entry-restriction status, or to decide the business visa application within a specified time.
p. 4Original Court PDF
Stephen Gary ChardvsUnion Of India & Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
