LI Network
Published on: 15 August 2023 at 09:19 IST
The Bombay High Court recently asserted that Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law, extends not only to citizens but also to ‘non-citizens’ residing in India [Olga Rosnina vs the Foreigners Regional Registration Office].
A division bench comprising of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Bharat Deshpande made this significant observation while directing the authorities not to proceed with the deportation of a foreign national. The Court’s decision was based on the absence of any clarification sought from the foreigner regarding the alleged breach of visa conditions.
The judges held, “At least a clarification could have been sought from the petitioner and upon considering the same, a decision could have been taken. This was not done. Therefore, on this short ground, we set aside the impugned deportation order.”
In its ruling on August 7, the bench also underlined the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and fair play. The foreign national in question had asserted that she had not violated any of the stipulated visa conditions.
“Principles of natural justice and fair play are an integral aspect of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This Article safeguards not only citizens but also non-citizens,” the Court affirmed.
The Court further emphasized that the Central government, while endowed with broad powers concerning deportation matters, should exercise these powers impartially.
“While the Central Government is vested with extensive powers in matters of deportation, it is imperative that such powers are exercised impartially and devoid of any arbitrary actions. In this particular case, there was no indication of a threat to the internal security of the nation or similar concerns,” the bench underscored.
Consequently, the Court nullified a deportation order issued on May 17, 2023, against the foreign national.
The authorities contended that the foreign national had been granted a “work visa” but had engaged in “business activities,” thereby violating the terms of her visa. However, the judges noted that the foreign national had already resigned from her company, eliminating any doubt regarding her adherence to the visa conditions.
After her resignation, the foreign national had applied for a dependency visa. Unfortunately, her plea was rejected by the authorities due to the deportation order issued in May.
In light of these circumstances, the Court directed the authorities to reconsider the foreign national’s application for a dependency visa and mandated a suspension of deportation for at least two months while her plea is under consideration.
