Delhi High Court Refuses Interim Entry To OCI Cardholder Facing Blacklisting Over Alleged Anti-India Activities

The Delhi High Court has refused to pass an interim order permitting an 81-year-old Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholder, facing blacklisting over alleged “pro-Kashmir separatist activities” and “anti-India propaganda”, to visit India to attend family wedding festivities.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia held that the man, Khalid Jahangir Qazi, failed to establish a strong prima facie case warranting interim relief in his favour.

The Court dismissed his interim application filed in his appeal concerning the issue of cancellation of his OCI card, as well as his blacklisting by the Union Government.

Qazi challenged the single judge order passed in November 2024 setting aside the show cause notice, the OCI cancellation order and the blacklisting order, while directing the authorities to issue a fresh notice clearly specifying the grounds for any proposed restriction or cancellation.

The Union Government as well as Qazi challenged the said judgment in intra-court appeals. The cross-appeals are scheduled for final hearing on August 24.

The fresh application came to light when Qazi approached the Supreme Court seeking permission to visit India during August-September to attend family weddings in Srinagar.

The Supreme Court, while disposing of his plea, had requested the High Court to decide his prayer for interim relief expeditiously.

While the Division Bench denied him interim relief, it framed various questions of law to be adjudicated in the appeals governing the interplay between the Citizenship Act and the Foreigners Act, and whether the provisions of one enactment would prevail over the other?

The Court observed that prima facie, the Citizenship Act and the Foreigners Act operate in distinct spheres and that the safeguards under Section 7D of the Citizenship Act cannot be automatically imported into proceedings under the Foreigners Act.

“This position is further supported by Section 7 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, which is pari materia with Section 3 of the Foreigners Act and does not incorporate the safeguards contemplated under Section 7D of the Citizenship Act, despite being a subsequent enactment,” the Court said.

For context, Section 7D of the Citizenship Act gives Central Government the power to cancel the registration of OCI cardholder. Section 3 of the Foreigners Act empowers the Central Government of India to prohibit, regulate, or restrict the entry, departure, and presence of foreign nationals within India.

Expressing a prima facie view, the Bench observed that procedures contemplated under both the statutes operate under distinct statutory regimes and carry separate consequences.

It added that the view taken by the single judge the Impugned Judgment on the interplay between the two enactments required careful consideration in the Appeals, as such a view may have wider ramifications.

Further, the considered it appropriate not to peruse the material submitted by the authorities in sealed covers at the interim stage, observing that the same would be relevant for consideration only at the stage of final hearing of the appeals. Accordingly, it returned the sealed covers.

“Pending such adjudication and having regard to the Respondents' assertion that the material relating to the Cancellation Order and the Blacklisting Order was distinct and bears upon national security, the balance of convenience lies in favour of the Respondents, who are entrusted with safeguarding national security, integrity, sovereignty, and larger public interest,” the Court said.

It ultimately held that Qazi failed to make out a strong prima facie case to persuade the Court for grant of interim relief permitting him to travel to India pending consideration and determination of the complex issues in the appeals.

“Since both the Appellant and the Respondents have challenged the Impugned Judgment on issues directly bearing upon the Appellant's entitlement to enter India, those questions must be adjudicated finally before any such permission is granted to the Appellant to visit India. Granting the interim relief at this stage would substantially overlap with the final relief sought by the Appellant and would prejudice the Respondents' Appeals raising specific concerns of national interest, which is paramount,” it said.

Title: KHALID JAHANGIR QAZI THROUGH HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MS FARIDA SIDDIQI v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ANR & Other Connected Matters

Click here to read order