Foreign nationals have no vested right to visa extension, which remains within sovereign discretion.

The petitioner, a Nigerian citizen pursuing a Bachelor of Science in Anesthesia Technology at Jain (Deemed to be University), held a student visa extended until 31 August 2026.

He applied for a further extension on 20 August 2026 to complete his remaining semesters.

On 9 September 2026, the FRRO issued a Leave India Order.

The respondents stated that the University had rusticated the petitioner and notified the authorities of the termination of his enrolment.

The petitioner challenged the order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking its quashing and consideration of his visa-extension application.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s visa had expired before the impugned order was issued and that no extension had been granted.

The Court considered the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

It stated that a foreign national has no vested right to an extension of a visa and that the grant of a visa lies within the discretion of the sovereign authority.

The Court also noted that non-extension of the petitioner’s visa was not the subject matter of the writ petition.

Although the parties relied on Sabitri Dey @ Swasthi Dey & Ors. v. Union of India and two decisions of coordinate Benches of the Karnataka High Court, the Court did not decide the petition by applying those authorities.

The Court treated the expiry of the petitioner’s visa on 31 August 2026, before issuance of the Leave India Order on 9 September 2026, as decisive to the petition.

Although the petitioner had applied for an extension before expiry, no extension had been granted by the time the visa expired.

In light of the absence of a vested right to an extension, and because non-extension was not itself under challenge, the Court found it unnecessary to adjudicate the justification for the reasons stated in the Leave India Order.

Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.