The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside the Ministry of External Affairs' refusal of political clearance for a Punjab Government delegation led by Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann to visit Paris for the SIAL international food exhibition. The Court directed the Centre to urgently approve the visit.

Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya held that the refusal, which said only that clearance was declined “from political angle”, gave no reasons. The Court held that the reasons offered later in the Centre's affidavit could not be used to justify it.

The Court observed, “It has not been explained what that political angle/viewpoint is, and whether political clearance means examining the application from a political angle. No reasons are forthcoming.”

It further added that, " it has not been explained as to why is there a requirement for the Ministry to examine functional role of the Chief Minister during the proposed visit. The requirement appears to be superfluous for the reason the clearance has been denied due to 'political angle' alone, and not on any functional aspect of the dignitary's visit."

The State of Punjab challenged the MEA's decision denying political clearance to a three-member delegation for a visit to France from October 17 to 21, 2026. The delegation consisted of the Chief Minister, the Chief Secretary and the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister.

SIAL (Salon International de l'Alimentation) is held once every two years at the Paris Nord Villepinte Exhibition Centre, with exhibitors expected from 130 countries. APEDA, a statutory body under the Union Ministry of Commerce and Industry, had confirmed the participation of MARKFED, Punjab's apex cooperative, in the APEDA India Pavilion. MARKFED was to bear the entire cost of the visit.

The State granted its own approvals on September 2 and 3, 2026, wrote to the MEA, and sent a reminder on September 8. On September 9, it uploaded an application for political clearance on the MEA's e-Pol Clearance portal, giving detailed reasons for the visit.

On October 12, the portal showed the application's status as: “Ministry of External Affairs has examined the proposal. Clearance from political angle is declined.”

The State, represented by Additional Advocate General Chanchal Singla argued that the clearance had been refused arbitrarily, without hearing the State and without any reasons. It said the refusal came at the eleventh hour to frustrate the visit.

It pointed out that the Chief Minister had earlier received clearance, under the same procedure, for visits to Finland, the Netherlands, Japan, the Czech Republic, South Korea, Australia and Germany, and that his Z-plus security had been taken care of on those occasions.

The State alleged political vendetta. It argued that because Punjab is governed by an opposition party, the Centre was trying to embarrass the Chief Minister. It called the refusal discriminatory, noting that the Chief Minister of neighbouring Haryana had recently been granted clearance for foreign visits, including to Singapore.

Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain filed an affidavit of an Under Secretary (Europe West), MEA, dated October 16, 2026. The Centre submitted that, granting or refusing political clearance is the MEA's function, since it is responsible for conducting foreign relations. Following the process is mandatory to protect the safety, security, dignity and standing of the dignitary.

The decision depends on factors such as bilateral relations, the prevailing political and diplomatic climate, and any anti-India activities in or from the destination country.

As a matter of practice, reasons are not shown on the portal, because refusals often involve sensitive matters that cannot be disclosed without affecting bilateral relations.

The Chief Minister's presence was “not commensurate” with the nature and scale of the event.

He faces serious threats from terrorist outfits and had sought comprehensive security. Without a proper bilateral invitation from the foreign government, such security and protocol arrangements would not be available, and attending a crowded commercial event could expose him to grave danger.

The Chief Minister had no functional role to perform during the visit.

The allegation of political vendetta was baseless. The clearances granted for his earlier visits showed that his applications had been considered fairly, and this one was refused “prudently” to protect his safety and dignity.

The Court found it established on record that, the Chief Minister had been invited to the exhibition, the State had approved the visit and informed the MEA; APEDA had confirmed MARKFED's participation and allotted it a stall; MARKFED was to bear the cost; the purpose of the visit had been explained in the application.

It noted that despite this, clearance had been refused only “from political angle”, with no explanation.

The Court rejected the argument that there was no proper invitation from the foreign government. It relied on a letter dated September 22, 2026 from SIAL to the French Embassy in India asking for the Chief Minister's visa to be expedited. The letter stated that SIAL was pleased to count him among its visitors and saw the visit as an opportunity for him to establish professional contacts and negotiate contracts. The State had produced the letter in court.

Relying on the Constitution Bench decision in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, the Court held that the validity of an order must be judged by the reasons stated in it, and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in an affidavit. Since the reasons in the Centre's affidavit did not appear in the refusal itself, they could not justify it.

The Court allowed the petition and set aside the communication denying political clearance. It directed the Centre Government to urgently approve the visit as per the programme submitted by the State, facilitate the delegation's departure accordingly and extend all due protocols as per the prescribed procedure.

Appearance: Mr. Chanchal K. Singla, Mr. Ferry Sofat and Mr. Kuljit Singh, Additional Advocates General, Punjab, for the petitioner.

Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General, and Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Senior Advocate (Senior Panel Counsel), with Ms. Saigeeta Srivastava, Senior Panel Counsel, and Ms. Shreyansi Verma, Central Government Counsel, for the respondents.