Karnataka High Court
Obinna Jeremiah Okafor vs Foreigners Regional Registration ... on 14 August, 2025
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:31562
WP No. 15380 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO.15380 OF 2025 (GM-PASS)
BETWEEN:
1. OBINNA JEREMIAH OKAFOR S/O MR. OKAFOR GOWDIN
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/A NO.15, 2ND FLOOR,
3RD CROSS RD, NEW YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560064.
2. JOHN ADEKWAGH VANDEFAN S/O VANDEFAN WISDOM
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/A NO.15, 2ND FLOOR,
3RD CROSS RD, NEW YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560064.
3. CYRIL UDOKA ODIGBO S/O JAMES ODIGBO
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/A NO.15, 2ND FLOOR,
3RD CROSS RD, NEW YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560064.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. REMMY C. IGWE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. FOREIGNERS REGIONAL REGISTRATION OFFICE (FRRO)
BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, (BOI), BMTC BUS STAND,
Digitally signed
by VINAYAKA B 5TH FLOOR, 'A' BLOCK, TTMC, BUILDING,
V KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH RD, SHANTI NAGAR,
Location: High
Court of BENGALURU, BENGALURU-560027.
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
2. POLICE INSPECTOR,
R.T. NAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU-560032.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H. SHANTHI BHUSHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 R/W 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO RELEASE THESE PETITIONERS FROM DETENTION AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO EXTEND THE VISA OF PETITIONER NO.1 WITHOUT DELAY, TO ENABLE HIM MOVE FREELY WITHOUT FEAR OR HARASSMENT & ETC. -2-
NC: 2025:KHC:31562 WP No. 15380 of 2025 HC-KAR THIS WRIT PETITION PERTAINING TO BENGALURU BENCH HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 15.07.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER AT DHARWAD BENCH THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV CAV ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) The present writ petition has been filed by three foreign citizens namely, Mr.Obinna Jeremiah Okafor referred to as petitioner No.1, John Adekwagh Vandefan referred to as petitioner No.2 and Mr.Cyril Udoka Odigbo referred to as petitioner No.3.
Though the petition was filed by three petitioners, third of whom is Cyril Udoka Odigbo, who during the pendency of the present proceedings has withdrawn the writ petition, the petition was disposed off insofar as petitioner no.3 is concerned on 26.06.2025. Accordingly, the present lis remains for adjudication as regards petitioner nos.1 and 2.
2. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are Nigerian nationals and have assailed the action of Respondent No.1 in "Refusing to extend the visa and detaining them as well". -3-
NC: 2025:KHC:31562 WP No. 15380 of 2025 HC-KAR
3. The facts made out are that the petitioner No.1 had come on a Student Visa to Bangalore which was valid upto 26.04.2025, which admittedly as on the date when the matter was taken up for hearing was cancelled. Insofar as petitioner No.2 is concerned, he had come on a Student Visa to pursue his studies at Karpagam Academy of Higher Education, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu on 05.11.2024 and in terms of the information furnished in the counter affidavit, as he had not registered, his visa is stated to have been cancelled.
4. The petitioners were presented before the Foreigners Regional Registration Office- Respondent No.1 on 23.12.2024 and an order for movement restriction was passed on 23.12.2024 in terms of Section 3 (2)(e) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (Foreigners Act) read with para 11(2) of the Foreigners Order, 1948. The petitioners were then referred to Aasare Foundation Trust, Laggere, Bengaluru with a movement restriction not to move out of the Aasare Trust. From the facts and pleadings, it appears that the visa of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were valid as on the date of the movement restriction order. -4-
NC: 2025:KHC:31562 WP No. 15380 of 2025 HC-KAR It also appears to be an admitted fact that visa came to be cancelled only later, after filing of the petition.
5. It is also the specific case of the petitioners in the reply to the counter affidavit that the procedure of passing a movement restriction order as well as cancellation of the visa was done in violation of protection against arbitrary action as available under article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It was further contended that the ultimate action which has adverse consequences on the petitioners insofar as their visa period stood truncated was passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice by affording an opportunity of hearing. It is also contended that the order of 23.12.2024 does not disclose reasons.
6. It was contended that the subsequent cancellation of visa was without notice to the petitioners and the defence of the respondent that cancellation of visa is linked to sovereign rights is not acceptable and cannot be construed to confer absolute powers that can be exercised arbitrarily. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC:31562 WP No. 15380 of 2025 HC-KAR
7. Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India Sri.Shanthi Bhushan on the other hand has contended that the order of movement restriction is passed under Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, which cannot be found fault with, as such order was passed on the basis of inputs received from appropriate authorities as evidenced at Annexure-R8 with specific inputs form the Anti-Narcotics Wing and the Central Crime Branch. It is further contended that the petitioners have not challenged order canceling their Visa.
8. Heard Sri. Remmy Chibure Igwe, learned counsel appearing for petitioners, Sri.Shanthi Bhushan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent no.1 and Sri.Mohammed Jaffer Shah, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent no.2.
9. At the outset it must be noticed that as on date, admittedly, the visa of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 has been cancelled as is evidenced from averments at para 8 of the statement of objections filed by respondent No.1. Insofar as the subsequent event of cancellation of visa and scope of judicial review of such action is no more res integra in light of -6- NC: 2025:KHC:31562 WP No. 15380 of 2025 HC-KAR the order of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Hans Muller of Nurenburg v. Supt., Presidency Jail, Calcutta and Others1 (Hans Muller of Nurenburg). The relevant observations are as follows:
"34. Article 19 of the Constitution confers certain fundamental rights of freedom on the citizens of India, among them, the right "to move freely throughout the territory of India" and "to reside and settle in any part of India," subject only to laws that impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of those rights in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe. No corresponding rights are given to foreigners. All that is guaranteed to them is protection to life and liberty in accordance with the laws of the land. This is conferred by Article 21 which is in the following terms:
"21. Protection of life and personal liberty.--No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law."
35. Entries 9, 10, 17, 18 and 19 in the Union List confer wide powers on the Centre to make laws 1 (1955) 1 SCC 167.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:31562 WP No. 15380 of 2025 HC-KAR about, among other things, admission into and expulsion from India, about extradition and aliens and about preventive detention connected with foreign affairs. Therefore, the right to make laws about the extradition or aliens and about their expulsion from the land is expressly conferred; also, it is to be observed that extradition and expulsion are contained in separate entries indicating that though they may overlap in certain aspects, they are different and distinct subjects. And that brings us to the Foreigners Act which deals, among other things, with expulsion, and the Extradition Act which regulates extradition.
36. The Foreigners Act confers the power to expel foreigners from India. It vests the Central Government with absolute and unfettered discretion and, as there is no provision fettering this discretion in the Constitution, an unrestricted right to expel remains.
37. The law of extradition is quite different. Because of treaty obligations it confers a right on certain countries (not all) to ask that persons who are alleged to have committed certain specified offences on their territories, or who have already been convicted of those offences by their courts, be handed over to them in custody for prosecution or -8- NC: 2025:KHC:31562 WP No. 15380 of 2025 HC-KAR punishment. But despite that the Government of India is not bound to comply with the request and has an absolute and unfettered discretion to refuse."
10. The petitioners rely on the decision in Kamil Siedczynski v. Union of India2 ("Kamil", for short) where the facts are materially different. In the case of Kamil (supra) the petitioner there held a valid, renewed student visa at the time of the expulsion order and no penal offence was alleged. The Calcutta High Court held that the discretion under Section 3 of the Foreigners Act is not unfettered when exercised against a foreigner with subsisting legal rights, and that such discretion must comply with constitutional safeguards. In contrast, in the present case, though a movement restriction order was passed while the visas were valid, both visas were subsequently cancelled before final adjudication of this Court. Once a visa is cancelled, the foreigner loses any legal right to remain in India, and the State's power to expel becomes absolute. The right to expel foreigners is held to be an unfettered right under the provisions of the Foreigners Act 2 2020 SCC OnLine Cal 670.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:31562 WP No. 15380 of 2025 HC-KAR as held by the Apex Court. In such circumstances, even if there were questions about procedural fairness, they would not alter the inevitable outcome of cancellation of the visa.
11. It must be noticed that once the power to expel foreigners is held to be an absolute and unfettered discretion, the question of entering into correctness of such order is not open in judicial review in the context of the present facts.
12. It is to be noticed that prior to termination of the visa, the order of movement restriction under Section 3 of the Foreigners Act was passed when still the visa was valid. The contentions raised by the petitioners is by placing reliance on Article 14 would refer to alleged arbitrary action in passing the order of movement restriction by reliance on Annexure-R8, which is the report of the police authorities observing that the petitioners were involved in desirable activities without affording an opportunity of hearing.
13. It would not be necessary at this stage to enter into the correctness of such action as the order of movement
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:31562 WP No. 15380 of 2025 HC-KAR restriction has now effectively merged with the order of revocation of visa.
14. If indeed the visa was not terminated, then the question of procedural fairness under Article 14 perhaps could still have been looked into. In light of the visa having been terminated, an enquiry into the procedural lapses if any, at the stage of passing an order of movement restriction is an exercise in futility.
15. Insofar as the termination of visa, the argument of legitimate expectation that the student visa would be valid till the petitioner completes his course would be impermissible as such right of legitimate expectation would have to give way to the right exercised to terminate the visa as recognized by the Apex Court. Further, the question of procedural fairness which is insisted upon is an aspect determined by factual context.
16. Taking note of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the aspect of procedural fairness would by itself not lead to setting aside the order of termination of visa.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:31562 WP No. 15380 of 2025 HC-KAR
17. The Coordinate Bench had considered the aspect of futility of affording an opportunity under certain circumstances which would be of relevance in the present case. The observations made in W.P.No.14734/2021 in the order dated 27.01.2025 which are of relevance are extracted herein below:
"32. The legal position as regards vitiation of an order made in the absence of adherence to principles of Natural Justice requires reference to the judgment of the Apex Court in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation [Olga Tellis] as well as the judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sudhir Kumar Singh and Others [Sudhir Kumar Singh].
33. While in the case of Olga Tellis (supra), the Apex Court has laid emphasis on the process of hearing as a stand alone right violation of which would vitiate the conclusion. Subsequent judgments including in Sudhir Kumar Singh (supra), has clarified that decision would stand vitiated only if it was established that there was prejudice and affording such opportunity afresh would alter the conclusion made.
34. In Sudhir Kumar Singh (supra), it was opined that the Court would not issue futile writs and if even after affording an opportunity of
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:31562 WP No. 15380 of 2025 HC-KAR hearing, the conclusion would be the same, the question of affording an opportunity of hearing need not be resorted to."
18. Clearly, in light of the conclusion of the Apex Court that the power of expulsion being an absolute right of the State, question of entering into the contention regarding violation of principles of natural justice would not arise as even if the order is set aside and opportunity afforded, the conclusion would not be altered.
19. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE NP LIST NO.: 19 SL NO.: 1