Bombay High Court Quashes Order Asking Taiwan National To Leave India, Says Pursuing Online Education Didn't Violate Employment Visa

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (July 28) quashed and set aside an order directing a Taiwan national to leave India at the earliest, for allegedly breaching his 'employment' Visa by simultaneously pursuing two educational courses and re-entering India now on a 'student' Visa for pursuing his law course at city's prominent - Government Law College (GLC).A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad held the decision of the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (Bureau of Immigration) to be 'arbitrary' after noting that the petitioner - Wu Jyun Lin (34) did not breach any conditions of the 'employment' Visa, which he secured in March 2019 and got it extended till November 2025. During this period, Lin was working at a company in Gujarat and simultaneously, he pursued - Online Certification course in Human Resources conducted by IIM Shillong and Online Master of Business Law course conducted by the National Law School of India University. Amid all this, the bench noted, Lin appeared for the State Common Entrance Test in August 2024 and secured admission to the GLC, Mumbai and his admission was confirmed by September 2024. Subsequently in May 2025, Lin resigned from his job and he was relieved from the same in July last year. The judges further noted that on July 2025, Lin returned to Taiwan and from there he again applied for a 'student' Visa and was granted one in August last year, which is valid till August 2028. As per rules, a foreign national entering India has to register himself within a deadline of 14 days on arrival. In this case, Lin arrived on August 20, 2025 and applied for registration on September 1, 2025. However, the authorities did not respond to his application and finally in December last year, after multiple communications from Lin, he was informed that since he delayed in applying for registration, he was supposed to pay Rs 50,000 fine. When he disputed the same, he was finally issued an 'Exit Permit' asking him to leave India, in February 2026. Lin challenged this very decision arguing that he had not breached any of the provisions of law or conditions imposed on him during his initial stay under the 'employment' Visa or the now issued 'student' Visa. The FRRO authorities argued that during his initial stay, he ought not have pursued educational courses as he was here under an 'employment' Visa and thus he breached the conditions imposed therein. However, the judges noted that only two such conditions were then imposed which were - (i) that it was not valid for prohibited/restricted/cantonment areas; and (ii) that FRRO registration was required within fourteen days of arrival in India."We are unable to accept the Respondent's contention that the Exit Permit was justified as the Petitioner violated the conditions of his earlier Employment Visa by pursuing educational courses while employed in India. The Petitioner was in employment till July 1, 2025 and simultaneously pursued online academic programmes. There is no prohibition in the conditions of Employment Visa from doing so. The material on record does not establish any breach of the express conditions contained in the Employment Visa. The Petitioner is not involved in any criminal investigations nor are any proceedings filed against him by any authorities. The Indian Embassy at Taiwan is presumed to be aware that the Petitioner had already begun studying at the Government Law College, under the Employment Visa. Nevertheless it granted the Student Visa to the Petitioner. The Student Visa now issued specifically prohibits employment or business activities. It is not the Respondents' case that after entering India on the Student Visa the Petitioner has engaged in any employment or otherwise breached any condition of the Student Visa. Therefore, if the Petitioner is directed to leave India, it would seriously disrupt his education.," the judges observed in the order. The Petitioner, the bench noted, arrived in India on August 20, 2025 and submitted his online application on September 1, 2025, which is within the prescribed period. "There is no delay on the Petitioner's part and hence the question of imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000 does not arise. The Petitioner's request is closed without assigning any reasons and he was called upon to pay a penalty again without assigning any reasons. There is no response to any of the Petitioner's representations. Thereafter, the impugned Exit Permit came to be issued without even considering the Petitioner's explanation. Such actions, in the present peculiar facts, are arbitrary and cannot be sustained," the bench held. With these observations, the bench quashed and set aside the 'Exit India Permit' issued to Lin. Appearance:Senior Advocate Mihir Desai assisted by Advocate Prithviraj Gole appeared for the Petitioner.Advocates Leena Patil, Rahul Tiwari and Akanksha Mishra represented the FRRO.Assistant Government Pleader Prashant Kamble represented the Union...

Bombay High Court Quashes Order Asking Taiwan National To Leave India, Says Pursuing Online Education Didn't Violate Employment Visa

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Narsi Benwal

Bombay High Court Quashes Order Asking Taiwan National To Leave India, Says Pursuing Online Education Didn't Violate Employment Visa

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers