Savings Clause Under Foreigners Act Does Not Authorise Initiation Of Fresh Proceedings After Its Repeal: MP High Court Clarifies

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently set aside an FIR against the owner of a residential house for failing to submit Form C within the prescribed period, observing that fresh proceedings under the Foreigners Act, 1946, cannot be initiated after the enforcement of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025.

The bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi observed,

"The saving clause does not operate to revive the repealed Foreigners Act, 1946, nor does it authorise initiation of fresh proceedings or registration of offences thereunder in respect of acts or omissions occurring after the enforcement of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025".

The petitioner challenged the registration of an FIR for offences relating to the obligation of hotel keepers to furnish particulars (Section 7). The FIR alleged that the petitioner, as the owner of a residential house, failed to submit Form C within 24 hours regarding the stay of a foreign national.

An American Citizen, Mohammad Saheb Khan, had arrived in India on a valid visa from September 25, 2025, to December 24, 2025. After initially staying in a hotel in Jabalpur, he visited his relatives in District Umaria.

The counsel for the petitioner contended that he had informed the police about the foreigner's visit and later submitted Form C on November 14, 2025. He further argued that he was a private individual and not operating a commercial establishment.

The counsel for the State, however, relied on the Savings clause under Section 36 of the 2025 Act to support the filing of an FIR under the repealed act.

The court noted that Rule 14 of the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992 casts an obligation on the keeper of the premises to submit a Form C where the foreigner is accommodated.

The court further observed that the Act of 2025 is compehesive statute governing immigration, entry and stay of foreigners in India. Following its enactment on September 1, 2025, the new rules were enacted, thereby ceasing the operation of the provisions of the 1992 Act unless expressly saved.

The bench highlighted, "The said Rules, 2025 constitute an independent and fresh set of subordinate legislation and are not a continuation or amendment of the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992, which were framed under the repealed Foreigners Act, 1946".

The court further reiterated that a subordinate legislation does not survive the repeal of its parent statute unless specifically preserved. In the present case, the alleged omission occurred on November 12, 2025, well after the repeal of the 1946 Act.

The bench held,

"Upon consideration of the saving clause relied upon by the respondent authorities, this Court finds that the same does not advance their case. The said clause merely preserves actions lawfully taken, proceedings initiated, or penalties imposed under the repealed enactments during the period when such enactments were in force, and creates a legal fiction only to ensure continuity of past actions, subject to consistency with the provisions of the new Act".

The court also empahsized that under the principle of criminal jurisdiction, no person can be prosecuted under a statute that was not in force on the date of the alleged act or omission.

The bench concluded,

"Consequently, invocation of the Foreigners Act, 1946 or the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992 by taking shelter under the saving clause is wholly misconceived and legally unsustainable. Any obligation or penal consequence after 01.09.2025 must necessarily be traced to the provisions of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 and the Rules framed thereunder alone".

Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, and the FIR was quashed.

Case Title: Mukhtiyar Ahmed Khan v Union of India

Click here to read/download the Order