Repatriation may be directed to facilitate pending citizenship and long-term visa applications on humanitarian grounds.

The petitioner, an Indian citizen and government teacher from Rajouri, married a Pakistani national in 2005. Their son, Fardin Sajjad (aka Aasim Sajjad), was born in Pakistan in 2006 and moved to India with his mother in 2007 on a valid visa.

The son’s stay was extended periodically until 2015. After the mother’s death in 2013, the son remained in the petitioner’s sole care, completing his schooling in India.

The petitioner applied for his son’s Indian citizenship under Section 5(1)(d) of the Citizenship Act, 1955.

Despite the pending application and past extensions, JK Police forcibly deported the son to Pakistan on April 29, 2025, following the Pahalgam Terror Attack.

The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus for his son’s repatriation and a decision on the citizenship application.

1. Whether the deportation of the petitioner’s son was legally sustainable given his long-term residence, pending citizenship application, and lack of family support in Pakistan.

2. Whether the Court can direct the respondent authorities to retrieve a deported individual on humanitarian grounds to pursue legal residency and citizenship claims.

The Court considered the sovereign power of the State to regulate the entry and departure of foreigners under the Foreigners Act and associated Rules.

Section 5(1)(d) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which provides for the registration of minor children of Indian citizens as citizens.

The Court also relied on the principle of "sacrosanct human values and rights".

The judicial precedent set in Rakshanda Rashid v. Union of India (LPA No. 118/2025), where the Division Bench facilitated the return of a deported individual to pursue citizenship and Long Term Visa (LTV) applications.

The Court observed that the son had resided in India for nearly 18 years (2007–2025), studied in Indian schools, and had no remaining immediate family in Pakistan following his mother’s death.

While the respondents argued that the deportation was a valid exercise of sovereign power due to the expiration of the visa and the "not received" status of the online citizenship application, the Court found that the petitioner had consistently sought extensions and citizenship.

Linking the law to the unique facts, the Court held that the human aspect of a child being separated from his only surviving parent and stranded in a "conflict zone" outweighed the technicalities of visa expiration.

Following the logic of the Rakshanda Rashid case, the Court determined that judicial intervention was necessary to protect human rights and facilitate the legal process for citizenship that was already set in motion.

The Court further directed the MHA to expeditiously process the citizenship application filed under Section 5(1)(d) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, within a period of eight weeks, emphasizing the "human aspect of the matter".