While dismissing the petition of a Pakistani woman married to an Indian citizen, seeking an opportunity to submit an application for obtaining an appropriate Visa to enter India, the Kerala High Court has held that the issuance of a tourist visa is a sovereign function of the State and a foreign spouse has no vested right over it.

The petition before the High Court was filed for a long-term visa in favour of a Pakistani woman who wanted to attend her brother-in-law’s wedding.

The Single Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held, “In this context, it is relevant to mention that no foreign national has an inherent or legally enforceable right to seek entry into India and the issuance of a tourist Visa, as it is a sovereign function of the State, deeply rooted in considerations of national security, foreign policy and administrative discretion. No foreign national, even if he/she is the spouse of an Indian citizen, has a vested right to demand that he/she should be permitted to enter the country.”

“Being a Pakistani National, from 25.04.2025 onwards, all Visa services have been brought to a stand still, and hence the second petitioner cannot demand that her Visa application should be processed. As long as Ext.R4(a) remains valid and is not revoked, the second petitioner cannot claim any right to have her application processed”, it added.

Advocate Amal Dev D.S. represented the Petitioner while Central Govt Counsel Harikrishnan P.B. represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Petitioners are husband and wife, with the first petitioner being an Indian citizen and the second petitioner a Pakistani national. Their marriage was registered in Dubai, and they have been residing abroad. The brother of the first petitioner was getting married, and the petitioners intended to participate in the said wedding. However, when the second petitioner attempted to apply for an Indian Visa, no procedure could be identified to submit an application for obtaining a visit Visa or any other suitable category of Visa. The petitioners alleged that an opportunity to lodge even a formal application for a Visa, through the prescribed electronic platform, was not available. It was in such circumstances that the petitioners approached the High Court seeking appropriate directions.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, stated that the regulation of entry, stay, movement and departure of foreigners into and from India is an exclusive sovereign function of the Union and the said power flows from its obligation to safeguard the sovereignty, integrity, security and public order of the nation as specified in the erstwhile Foreigners Act, 1946 (which has been replaced with effect from September 1, 2025, by the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025).

The Bench took note of the fact that an order under Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, was issued stating that all existing valid Visas of Pakistani Nationals were revoked with immediate effect from April 27, 2025, and no new Visas were permitted to be issued for Pakistani Nationals. “An exception is seen carved out in the said order, in respect of existing medical Visas and long term Visas, with the validity of the former extended till 29.04.2025 i.e. just two days”, it added.

The Bench mentioned that Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, confers a wide power upon the Central Government to regulate immigration. “After security concerns were raised pursuant to certain attacks, at Pahalgam on 22.04.2025, the Central Government issued the order on 25.04.2025, suspending all Visa services to Pakistani Nationals. The said order continues to remain in force. As long as the order issued under Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 remains in force, no Pakistani National can demand that his/her application for Visa be processed”, it stated.

The Bench clarified that Article 14 of the Constitution could not be claimed by the petitioner wife as she was not in India. “Though Article 14 applies to non-citizens also, the same can be claimed only within the territory of India and while they are inside the country”, it held while dismissing the Petition.

Cause Title: Unaiz Kadumbottil v. Union Of India (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:63060)

Click here to read/download Order


Kerala High CourtJustice Bechu Kurian Thomas

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.