The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (September 23) dismissed a writ petition filed by a Nigerian national challenging a 'Leave India' order issued by the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO), observing that his visa had expired on August 31 and that he had no vested right to seek its extension, which falls within the sovereign discretion of the State. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 377]

Justice C.M. Poonacha dismissed the plea filed by Felix Mkpang Boc, a final-year undergraduate student at Jain (Deemed-to-be University), Bengaluru, challenging the FRRO's September 9 order directing him to leave India on or before September 23 after obtaining an Exit Permit.

The Court noted that the petitioner's visa had admittedly expired on August 31, 2026. Although he had claimed that he had applied for renewal of his visa on August 20 and that the application was pending, no extension had been granted before the expiry of his visa.

"There is no vested right for the petitioner to seek extension of visa since it is a discretion of the sovereign function," the Court observed.

The Court further held that the reasons contained in the impugned FRRO order did not require adjudication for deciding the petition, having regard to the fact that the petitioner's visa had already expired. It also noted that non-extension of the visa was not the subject matter of the writ petition.

The petitioner had sought quashing of the FRRO order and a direction to the authorities to consider his pending visa extension application.

He had contended that the FRRO order was non-speaking and had been passed without issuing a show-cause notice or providing him an opportunity of hearing. The order invoked Section 7(2) read with Section 29 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, and stated that the petitioner was "blacklisted or having Adverse Security Input".

The petitioner argued that the order did not disclose the particulars of the alleged blacklisting, the authority responsible for it, the date of blacklisting, or the nature and source of the alleged adverse security input.

He also invoked Article 21 of the Constitution, contending that the order was not fair, just and reasonable. He submitted that he had entered India lawfully on a valid passport and student visa, was registered with the FRRO and had been granted successive extensions, with the latest extension being valid until August 31, 2026.

The petitioner further submitted that he was a final-year student and that his university had issued a rustication order on August 30, which he had separately challenged before the High Court. He stated that he required a bona fide certificate from the institution, which was a mandatory requirement for visa extension.

Opposing the plea, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel Vinay Venugopal submitted that the petitioner was a Nigerian national who had entered India on a single-entry S1 student visa. He informed the Court that the university had terminated the petitioner's enrolment following an inquiry into complaints concerning him.

According to the Union's submission, the university had informed the FRRO, Bureau of Immigration and Ministry of Home Affairs about the termination of enrolment.

The Union also submitted that the petitioner had been informed of the possibility of seeking reconsideration of the FRRO order, but no such representation had been received.

The FRRO had also relied upon the Karnataka High Court's earlier decision in Christopher Camolins v. Union of India, where the Court had upheld a 'Leave India' notice issued to an Australian national.

The petitioner was represented by Advocate Remmy C. Igwe, while Senior CGSC Vinay Venugopal appeared for the FRRO.

Case Title: Felix Mkpang Boco v. Union of India & Ors.

Case No: WP 29876/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 377