While observing that the authorities are well within their rights to prevent an individual involved in a crime of child sex offence in a foreign country from setting foot on Indian soil, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) Card holder.

The petition was filed by a person of Indian origin holding a foreign passport and holding an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) Card.
The Single Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan held, “In the opinion of this Court, once the respondents have received information that an individual has been involved in a crime of such nature in a foreign country, they are well within their rights to prevent such a person from setting foot on Indian soil.”
Advocate Anand Duggal represented the Petitioner while Central Government Standing Counsel Amit Tiwari represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner was served with an order dated January 7, 2026 issued under Paragraph 6 of the Foreigners Order, 1948 upon arriving at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. The petitioner was not permitted to land in India and he was further directed to leave by the first available flight. The petitioner claimed that the impugned order did not disclose reasons or grounds for refusal of entry.

Reasoning

The Bench stated, “At the outset it is pertinent to note that the refusal of entry into the country is a sovereign function of the State that is embedded in considerations of national security, foreign policy and administrative discretion. Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 [now repealed] as well as Section 7 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 authorises the Central Government to make provisions, either generally or with respect to all foreigners, for prohibiting, regulating or restricting the entry of foreigners into India or, their departure therefrom or their presence or continued presence therein. The respondent authorities can therefore, or rather are entitled, to take into consideration all the relevant factors that may warrant scrutiny.”
The Bench took note of the respondent’s contention that they have been blacklisted from entering the country as he is a registered child sex offender in the United States of America. Considering that the material forming the basis of such blacklisting was confidential and classified in nature, the Bench held that the same could not be provided to the petitioner in the interest of the security and integrity of the country.
Holding that the petitioner failed to put forth any circumstance warranting exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Bench dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Charnjit Singh Bains v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:9891)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocate Anand Duggal
Respondent: Central Government Standing Counsel Amit Tiwari, Advocates Ayushi Srivastava, Kushagra Malik, Arpan Narwal, Ujjwal Tyagi


Delhi High CourtJustice Amit Mahajan

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.