Delhi HC rejects US-convicted sex offender’s visa plea, citing his conviction and concealment of an earlier case

Petitioner No. 1, formerly an Indian citizen and later a U.S. citizen, was denied entry at Delhi airport in December 2022 after arriving on an e-visa and was deported to Dubai.

His subsequent entry-visa applications were returned, and he alleged that the authorities had not given reasons or responded to his representations.

He sought, among other relief, consideration of his visa application and an entry visa as the spouse of Petitioner No. 2, an Indian citizen.

The respondents objected that he had omitted to disclose an earlier petition before the Gujarat High Court concerning the denial of entry and cancellation of his e-visa.

That petition had been dismissed on 6 January 2023; the Gujarat High Court had recorded that the denial was based on Petitioner No. 1’s U.S. conviction as a sex offender and an endorsement on his passport.

Whether Petitioner No. 1’s failure to disclose the earlier Gujarat High Court proceedings amounted to concealment of material facts warranting refusal of discretionary relief under Article 226.

Whether the respondents’ refusal to grant or process a fresh visa was unlawful, given the earlier denial of entry and the reasons recorded by the Gujarat High Court.

The Court applied the principle that relief under Article 226 is discretionary and may be refused where a petitioner suppresses material facts.

It also treated visa issuance as a sovereign function involving national-security, foreign-policy and administrative considerations, and held that a foreign national cannot claim a visa as a matter of right.

The Court relied on the earlier Gujarat High Court order concerning the denial of entry and cancellation of the e-visa, which had recorded the stated basis for that action.

No specific statute or separate precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court found that the earlier Gujarat High Court petition concerned the same underlying denial of entry and deportation, making its filing and dismissal material to the present proceedings.

Petitioner No. 1’s failure to disclose those proceedings amounted to suppression, and the order produced by the respondents showed that the earlier denial had been based on his U.S. sex-offender conviction and passport endorsement.

The Court considered that rationale applicable to the subsequent refusal to grant a fresh visa and, having regard to the State’s sovereign discretion over visa issuance, found no basis to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction.

It dismissed the petition, declining to direct consideration or grant of a visa or to provide the other requested relief.