Foreigners Have No Right To Reside Or Do Business: Karnataka High Court Upholds 'Leave India' Notice For Running Restaurant On Tourist Visa

The Karnataka High Court has refused to set aside a 'Leave India' notice issued against a French national for running a restaurant in Gokarna on a tourist visa for the past 15 years, holding that foreign nationals have no fundamental right to reside or carry on their business in India.

The single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum has directed Christophe Stephane Monxion, a French national who entered India on a tourist visa, to leave the country within seven days in accordance with the 'Leave India' notice issued through WhatsApp by the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer (FRRO).

“…The protection under Article 21 extends to all “persons,” including foreign nationals; however, the said protection is confined to ensuring that no person is deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with procedure established by law. The said guarantee cannot be expanded to confer a right to reside, settle, or carry on business within the territory of India. Such rights are traceable to Article 19(1)(e) and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which are expressly confined to citizens of India”, the court accordingly held in the order dated 22^nd April.

The French national had been running a restaurant by the name of 'Hotel Green' and residing at Gokarna for several years. Based on the investigation by the state law enforcement agencies, including the Additional Director General of Police, State Intelligence, Monxion was issued a 'Leave India' notice for violation of tourist visa conditions.

Monxion approached the High Court, alleging a violation of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 by the 'Leave India' Notice. He also accused the authorities of not affording him an opportunity to be heard before the issuance of the said notice.

However, the court paid no heed to the arguments made by Monxion and elucidated upon the scope of Article 21 protection r/w Article 19 when it comes to Indian citizens and foreign nationals.

Justice Magadum underscored that the right to reside or carry on any occupation, trade or business can be availed solely by the citizens of India. It does not violate the 'right to life' or 'personal liberty' of a foreign national under Article 21 merely because he has been ordered to leave the country for staying here with an invalid visa and carrying out his commercial activities. The rigours of Article 19 applicable solely to Indian citizens would apply with its procedural restrictions and foreigners cannot take the shield of Article 21, the court inferred.

“…Therefore, a foreign national, such as the petitioner, cannot claim, as a matter of right, entitlement to continue his stay in India or to engage in commercial activities, particularly when such activities are in clear violation of the conditions of the visa under which entry was permitted. The material on record clearly demonstrates that the petitioner has transgressed the permissible limits of a tourist visa and has engaged himself in running a restaurant and allied activities, which are not only unauthorized but also have given rise to disputes affecting local order”, the judge further added.

The court also noted that along with his business venture, the foreign national had been indulging in land disputes and issuance of threats to opposing parties.

“..permitting the petitioner to continue his stay in India, despite prima facie material indicating violation of visa conditions and involvement in activities affecting public order, would amount to countenancing illegality. A foreign national who enters the country on a tourist visa cannot be permitted to convert such entry into a platform for commercial ventures or to engage in conduct detrimental to societal order…” the single judge bench opined.

Though the French national argued that the principles of natural justice were violated prior to the issuance of notice, Justice Magadum observed that there could be no strict requirement of pre-decisional hearing so as to 'paralyse statutory powers' in matters involving regulation of visa conditions and potential threats to public order.

“…The doctrine of natural justice is not an unruly horse and must yield to the exigencies of administration, particularly in matters involving regulation of foreign nationals. The records disclose that the action is based on objective material and cannot be said to be a mere ipse dixit of the authority”, the court further said by relying on Hans Muller of Nurenberg vs. Superintendent, Presidency Jail, Calcutta and Others(1955) and Louis De Raedt vs. Union of India and Others(1991).

Accordingly, the French national's plea was dismissed. Consequently, the Leave India Notice was upheld. The respondent authorities have been given liberty to take consequential steps in the event of non-compliance with the court order mandating his exit within 7 days.

Case Title: Christophe Stephane Monxion v. The Foreigners Regional Registration Officer

Case No: Writ Petition No. 10453 of 2026 (GM-PASS)

Click Here To read/ Download Order