Dhanraj Rajendra Patel vs Union Of India on 6 January, 2023
Bench: Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 26810 of 2022
Facts
The petitioner, a citizen of the United States, submitted this petition in accordance with Article 226 of the Indian Constitution in order to reverse and annul the notice that the Indian Bureau of Immigration issued to him denying him entry. The petitioner’s advocate argued that the Civil Authority has the authority to deny a foreigner entry into India if, among other things, it is satisfied that the foreigner has been found guilty of an extradition offence under the terms of the Extradition Act, 1903.
Judgement
The Law on Extradition and the Foreigners Act, according to the Court, are two separate Acts. According to extradition laws, the goal is to handover individuals who are suspected of committing specific crimes on the territories or who have already been found guilty of those crimes by their Courts for prosecution or punishment. The Foreigners Act of 1946, on the other hand, grants the authority to deport a foreign national.
The petitioner has been found guilty of being a sex offender, according to the court, and this is also noted on his passport. Guidelines stating that foreigners who are morally depraved are not permitted to enter Indian territory have been issued in the exercise of a statutory power derived from Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. Section 3 confers powers on the Central Government to make orders. As per Section 3(1)
“The Central Government may by order make provision, either generally or with respect to all foreigners or with respect to any particular foreigner or any prescribed class or description of foreigner, for prohibiting, regulating or restricting the entry of foreigners into 2[India] or, their departure therefrom or their presence or continued presence therein.”
Hence, the Central Government has the power to impose laws that are upheld to bar such individuals from entering Indian territory. Before he could do so, the petitioner was deported to Dubai by the agency ie the airline, under section 6 of the Foreigners Order 1948. As per section 6, if a foreigner who has been refused permission to enter India is on board an aircraft which has arrived in India, a civil authority may require the pilot of the aircraft to deboard him.
The Court also cited Akil Valibhai Piplodwala (Lokhandwala) v. District Superintendent of Police, SCA No. 13566/2022 dated 18-07-2022, and held that the petitioner, an American passport holder, was ineligible to invoke Articles 14 and 19 of the Indian Constitution because she had deplaned and was in Dubai.
The petitioner’s father initiated and signed the current petition. The Court ruled that when a person is not physically present in India, his or her life or freedom cannot be asserted on his or her behalf.
Hence, the Court dismissed the petition.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY AMIT ARAVIND
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
