Gujarat High Court: While deciding the petition, the bench of Biren Vaishnav, J., held that life and liberty of a person not on the shore of India, cannot be invoked on his behalf when the individual himself is not in India and as per the guidelines, foreigners who are morally depraved are not permitted to enter the territorial limits of India.
The petitioner, who is a USA citizen has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash and set aside the notice issued by the Bureau of Immigration, India by which, he was refused to enter India.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the power to refuse permission to enter India can be issued if, amongst other things, the Civil Authority is satisfied that the foreigner has been sentenced in a foreign country for an extradition offence within the meaning of the Extradition Act, 1903.
The Court said that the Law of Extradition and the Foreigners Act are different Acts. As per the laws of extradition the purpose is to handover persons who are alleged to have committed certain offences on the territories or who have already been convicted of those offences by their Courts, for prosecution or punishment. On the other hand, the Foreigners Act, 1946 confers a power to expel a foreigner.
The Court said that the petitioner has been convicted as a sex offender and the endorsement is so made on his passport too. In the exercise of a statutory power flowing from the provisions of Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, guidelines have been issued that foreigners who are morally depraved are not permitted to enter the territorial limits of India. The country is within its rights to prescribe norms valid to prevent such people from setting foot on the Indian soil. The petitioner, before he could so enter was deported by the agency i.e., the Airline to Dubai under Paragraph 6 of the Foreigners Order, 1948. This was a mode of execution of the order by virtue of the authority vested in it under para 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 in discharge of its country's obligation under the guidelines.
The Court further referred to Akil Valibhai Piplodwala (Lokhandwala) v. District Superintendent of Police, SCA No.13566/2022 dated 18-07-2022, and held that the petitioner being an American Passport Holder, cannot invoke Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India on facts that petitioner is deplaned and is in Dubai.
The present petition has been filed and affirmed by the petitioner's father. The Court held that, life and liberty of a person not on the shore of India, cannot be invoked on his behalf when the individual himself is not in India.
Hence, the Court dismissed the petition.
[Dhanraj Rajendra Patel v. UOI, 2023 SCC OnLine Guj 148, decided on 06-01-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel for Petitioner: – Advocate IH Syed, Sr Counsel, Advocate Aftabhusen Ansari
Counsel for Respondent:- Advocate Devang Vyas, Advocate Chirayu A Mehta, Advocate Harshal N Pandya
