Subscribe
Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
Dismissing a writ petition filed by an Indian citizen and his Pakistani wife, the Kerala High Court said that a Pakistani national does not have a legally enforceable right to seek entry into India or even demand that a visa application be processed while the Union’s suspension of visa services for Pakistani nationals remains in force.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas passed the order on August 13, 2026, in a petition filed by Unaiz Kadumbottil, an Indian citizen from Wayanad, and his wife Khadija Jabeen Khalid Hussain, a Pakistani national. The couple, currently residing in Dubai, had approached the court after Khadija was unable to find a procedure to submit an application for an Indian visa.
“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,” the court noted.
The couple had married in Dubai on June 1, 2025. Unaiz’s brother was scheduled to get married on August 15, 2026, and the couple wanted to attend the wedding. According to the petition, when Khadija attempted to apply for an Indian visa, there was no available procedure to even submit an application for a visit visa or another suitable category.
The Union government opposed the petition, stating that no foreign national could claim a right to enter or remain in India except in accordance with law and policy decisions. It pointed out that an order issued on April 25, 2025, had revoked visas issued to Pakistani nationals, with exceptions for certain categories including medical, long-term, diplomatic and official visas. Visa services for Pakistani nationals had consequently remained suspended.
The petitioners argued that Khadija had caused no harm to India and that denying her even an opportunity to apply for a visa violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. They also contended that since she was married to an Indian citizen, she should at least be considered for a long-term visa.
The Union, however, maintained that even fresh applications for long-term visas were not open for consideration and that a foreign national had no vested right to enter, reside or settle in India.
In its judgment, the High Court held that regulation of the entry, stay, movement and departure of foreigners is an exclusive sovereign function of the Union government, linked to considerations of national security, sovereignty and public order.
The court noted that the Union government had suspended all visa services for Pakistani nationals following security concerns raised after the Pahalgam attack on April 22, 2025. It said the order issued on April 25, 2025, under Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, continued 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,” the court said.
The Kerala High Court further observed that Khadija’s proposed visit was specifically to attend her brother-in-law’s wedding on August 15 and 16, 2026. Therefore, the visa sought could only be a visit visa and not a long-term visa.
“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,” the court order said.
The court also rejected the petitioner's reliance on Articles 14 and 21. It held that Article 21 permits deprivation of liberty through a procedure established by law and found that the April 25, 2025 order had been issued under the statutory power contained in Section 3 of the Foreigners Act.
On Article 14, the court said that although the provision applies to non-citizens, it can be invoked by them only when they are within India. Referring to another Delhi High Court decision, it held that the constitutional guarantee of equality before law applies to individuals within India's jurisdiction and not to foreign nationals outside the country.
The court ultimately answered both questions framed at the beginning of the judgment in the negative and dismissed the writ petition.
