Pakistani National Married To Indian Citizen Has No Vested Right To Seek Visa: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court recently held that a foreign national does not have a right for consideration of her visa application to India merely because she is married to an Indian citizen. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 535]
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas dismissed the writ petition filed by a married couple, one of whom was a Pakistani national, who wanted to enter India to attend her brother-in-law's wedding.
“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 observed.
The Court noted that the central government had decided to restrict entry of Pakistani nationals since the Pahalgam attacks and had issued an order in this regard as per Section 3 of the Foreigners Act. It thus remarked that there can be no demand to have visa application considered:
“Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, confers a wide power upon the Central Government to regulate immigration. The said power is a facet of the sovereign function of the State. After security concerns were raised pursuant to certain attacks, at Pahalgam on 22.04.2025, the Central Government issued the order on 25.04.2025, suspending all Visa services to Pakistani Nationals. The said order continues 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 clarified the questions of law that arose in the plea:
“Can a foreign national demand that he/she should be given an opportunity to submit an application for obtaining an appropriate Visa to enter India and have it considered? Would the foreign national have a right for such consideration if he/she happens to be the spouse of an Indian citizen?...the questions…are answered in the negative.”
The first petitioner was an Indian citizen whereas the second petitioner was a Pakistani woman. They got married at Dubai and are presently residing abroad. In order to attend her husband's brother's wedding, the Pakistani woman attempted to apply for Indian visa but she could find no procedure to even submit an application or a visiting visa or any other type of visa. Aggrieved, they came before the High Court.
The petitioners contended that declining to provide even an opportunity to apply for and process a visa application is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. It was also submitted that though presently, the second petitioner intends to participate in a wedding, she would require a long-term visa since she is married to an Indian citizen. It was prayed that she be treated as entitled for such visa or at least be considered for grant of a long-term visa.
The Union government contended that no foreign national can claim any right for permission to enter or remain in India except as per law and the policy decisions. It is the discretion of the central government to grant visa, which is condition precedent to enter India, it was argued.
The Union produced an order [Exhibit R4(a)] issued as per Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. As per the order, it was decided that all visa issued to Pakistani nationals except medical, long term, diplomatic and official visas would be revoked with effected from April 27, 2025 and visa services to Pakistani national would remain suspended. In the order, it was also stated that unless this order is revoked, no visa can be processed or be issued to a Pakistani national.
After hearing the parties, the Court noted:
“the regulation of entry, stay, movement and departure of foreigners into and from India, is an exclusive sovereign function of the Union. The said power flows from its obligation to safeguard the sovereignty, integrity, security and public order of the nation as specified in the erstwhile Foreigners Act, 1946 (which has been replaced with effect from 01-09-2025, by the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025).”
The Bench also referred to Delhi High Court decisions in Sheena Naz & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. and Tanveer Wasim Safdar @ Tan France v. Union of India and Others and added:
“The right to liberty under Article 21 can be deprived on the basis of a procedure established by law. Ext.R4(a) having been issued in exercise of the powers under Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, is a procedure established by law. Further, Article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot be claimed by the second petitioner as she is not in India presently. Though Article 14 applies to non-citizens also, the same can be claimed only within the territory of India and while they are inside the country.”
Thus, the Court dismissed the plea.
Case No: WP(C) No. 22580 of 2026
Case Title: Unaiz Kadumbottil and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 535
Counsel for the petitioners: Amal Dev D.S.
Counsel for the respondents: Harikrishnan P.B. – CGC