Karnataka HC Bars Deportation Of Man Held At Bengaluru Foundation Until Authorities Fairly Examine His Citizenship Claim

The first petitioner claimed Indian citizenship by birth in Delhi in 1979 and relied on identity, civil and business documents, including a passport and birth certificate.

The respondents disputed his claim, alleging that he was a Bangladeshi national and that some supporting documents were fabricated.

He had previously been convicted under the Foreigners Act, 1946; his appeal against conviction was pending, and he had been released on bail.

On 5 March 2026, the FRRO ordered him to reside at the Utile Foundation and not leave until repatriation, without first notifying him of the case against him or determining his citizenship claim.

During the writ proceedings, the respondents filed material concerning their verification of his documents, but no determination by a Foreigners Tribunal was shown.

Section 7(2)(f)(ii) of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 authorises restrictions requiring a foreigner to reside at a particular place; paragraph 8 of the Immigration and Foreigners Order, 2025 permits written restrictions on a foreigner’s residence and movements.

Paragraph 16 of the Order provides for referral of the question whether a person is a foreigner to a Foreigners Tribunal.

Articles 14 and 21 protect all persons in India, including foreigners, and require fair, reasonable and non-arbitrary procedure; a person asserting citizenship must receive an adequate opportunity to present relevant material before an adverse determination is made.

The burden of proving that a person is not a foreigner lies on that person under Section 16 of the 2025 Act, but that burden does not displace the requirement of fair procedure.

The Court relied on Hasan Ali Raihany v. Union of India, requiring reasons and an opportunity to make a representation before deportation absent compelling circumstances; Sabitri Dey v. Union of India, affirming that foreigner-status proceedings must be fair and reasoned; and Obinna Jeremiah Okafor v. Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, requiring minimum procedural fairness where movement restrictions curtail liberty.

The Court also held that the bail order did not stay the conviction, and that executive authorities were not thereby deprived of statutory power to impose restrictions on a foreign national.

Although Section 7 authorised residence and movement restrictions, the impugned order treated the petitioner as a foreign national without first giving him notice or considering the documents supporting his citizenship claim.

The FRRO’s verification and assessment of those documents occurred during the writ proceedings; moreover, the statutory framework assigns the determination of foreigner status to the process contemplated by paragraph 16 of the Foreigners Order, not to the FRRO’s post hoc assessment.

The Court therefore declined to determine citizenship itself and held that the petitioner’s claim required fair adjudication by the competent authorities.

The pending criminal appeal did not invalidate the movement restriction: the conviction had not been stayed, and the restriction order was based on the petitioner’s asserted foreign status rather than the conviction itself.

It disposed of the petition, directing the authorities to take the requisite steps concerning nationality after affording the petitioner an adequate opportunity and to proceed expeditiously.

Deportation or repatriation was not to be undertaken until those steps had been completed.