Iranian Woman’s Blacklisting For Working On Business Visa Stands Until July 7, 2027: Delhi HC

In brief

The question

Whether a foreign national has an enforceable right to enter India or to obtain a visa, such that the petitioner could seek removal of the blacklisting order.

The court held

The Court held that the petitioner had not established infringement of an enforceable right warranting relief under Article 226.

It also directed

The petition was dismissed.

01Facts

The petitioner, an Iranian national, entered India on a Business Visa valid until 10 June 2025. After being informed that the visa could not be extended, she paid a penalty, obtained an exit permit, and departed India on 7 July 2025. She was subsequently denied entry on two occasions while holding a Tourist Visa.

p. 2 · ¶ 2–3

In earlier proceedings, the respondents stated that she had been blacklisted until 7 July 2027; the petition was disposed of with liberty to challenge the blacklisting.

p. 3 · ¶ 4

In this petition, she sought removal of the blacklist, citing her intention to establish a business in Goa and her claimed inability to return to Iran.

p. 3 · ¶ 6–7

The respondents stated that she had been blacklisted, at the behest of a security agency, for engaging in employment or remuneration activities prohibited under the Business Visa category.

p. 3 · ¶ 6–7

02Issues

i.Whether a foreign national has an enforceable right to enter India or to obtain a visa, such that the petitioner could seek removal of the blacklisting order.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 8–12, 16

ii.Whether the Court should interfere under Article 226 with the decision to blacklist the petitioner until 7 July 2027.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 13–17

03Law Applied

Section 7 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 authorises the Central Government to prohibit, regulate, or restrict the entry, departure, or presence of foreigners in India.

p. 3 · ¶ 9

In Hans Muller of Nuremberg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail, 1955 SCR (1) 1284, the Supreme Court recognised the executive’s broad discretion to expel foreigners.

p. 4 · ¶ 10

Louis De Raedt v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 544, held that a foreigner’s fundamental rights include the protections of Article 21 but not a right to reside or settle in India under Article 19(1)(e).

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 11

The Court also relied on Randa Chehab v. Union of India, 2023:DHC:9126, for the principle that entry into India is not an enforceable right but is subject to sovereign discretion.

p. 5 · ¶ 12

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 Section 7

04Reasoning

The Court accepted the respondents’ explanation that the petitioner had been blacklisted for prohibited employment or remuneration activity, and noted that she had overstayed beyond the validity of her Business Visa.

p. 5 · ¶ 7, 13–14

Applying the statutory framework and the cited authorities, it held that a foreign national has no enforceable right to enter India or obtain a visa.

p. 5 · ¶ 14–15

The decision to blacklist and its duration were matters for the executive, and the Court would not substitute its assessment for that of the competent authority.

p. 5 · ¶ 14–15

The restriction was also time-limited, expiring on 7 July 2027.

p. 5 · ¶ 14–15