Latest news with #LettersPatentAppeal
News18
02-07-2025
- Politics
- News18
'Judiciary Should Not Override...': Home Ministry On Pakistani Woman's Deportation, Says Report
Last Updated: In reference to the deportation of a Pakistani woman from Jammu and Kashmir, the Ministry of Home Affairs said the judiciary should not override executive decisions, per a report. More than a week after the Jammu and Kashmir High Court said that a Pakistani woman living in the Union Territory for years should have been protected from deportation during India's retaliatory action, the Ministry of Home Affairs has said that courts must preserve the institutional boundaries necessary for effective governance, The Hindu reported. According to the report, in a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA), the MHA also stated that the 'judiciary should not override" the executive's decision to deport a foreign national. The Ministry said the High Court order was constitutionally impermissible and unsustainable, as it directed the enforcement of a judicial writ beyond the sovereign territory of India to Pakistan, where she was deported and was thus ultra vires, the report claimed. 'There exists no extradition treaty, legal instrument, or international obligation binding Pakistan to return her to India. The Indian government cannot, under existing international law, compel a sovereign nation to surrender a non-citizen," the report quoted the Ministry of Home Affairs as saying. 'Courts must preserve the institutional boundaries necessary for effective governance", and the order, if allowed to stand, would establish a dangerous precedent, the report quoted the MHA. In the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack in April, the Union government had decided to suspend visa services to Pakistani nationals and directed them to leave India. After the deadline ended on April 27, the authorities deported several Pakistani nationals. Several Pakistani women living with their husbands for a long time in Kashmir were deported by the authorities to Pakistan. On June 24, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court said that a Pakistani woman living in Jammu and Kashmir for years, and having a long-term visa, should have been protected from deportation. Justice Rahul Bharti issued the direction while hearing a writ petition (WP(C) No. 1072/2025) filed by Rashida's husband, Sheikh Zahoor Ahmed. The man challenged his wife's deportation, arguing that she had been living in Jammu and Kashmir for years and held a long-term visa, which should have protected her from expulsion. The court expressed deep concern over Rashida's health and humanitarian situation, noting that she had no family or support in Pakistan. Justice Bharti emphasised that 'human rights are the most sacrosanct component of a human life" and said constitutional courts are sometimes compelled to act with 'SOS-like indulgence" in exceptional circumstances. 'Without proper legal scrutiny or a formal deportation order, Rashida was expelled during what critics have described as a mass repatriation drive that failed to account for individual legal statuses", the High Court said. The court noted that Rashida's long-term visa may have made her ineligible for deportation and criticised authorities for acting without due process. Later, the court directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to coordinate her return from Pakistan within 10 days and facilitate her reunion with her husband in Jammu. A compliance report was to be submitted by July 1. THE MHA's APPEAL According to the report, the MHA, in its LPA before the high court, stated that the woman's long-term visa did not exist at the time of the deportation, as her request for its renewal in January this year was rejected. Further, the Ministry said that while passing the order, the single judge 'failed to appreciate the circumstances and the national security considerations and the reasonable apprehension posed by the Pakistani nationals staying in India on account of a war-like situation between India and Pakistan", per the report. It added that the order is 'contrary to the principles of judicial restraint in the matters concerning national security and international relations, particularly in dealing with the nationals of a hostile country." It said the order was 'based on the assumption that marriage to an Indian citizen entitles her to claim a right to reside in India or to have her deportation reopened." The Ministry also stated that 'it is a well-settled law that a foreign national does not acquire Indian nationality or legal residency rights solely by virtue of marriage." 'A foreigner does not possess a fundamental right to reside in India, and their entry and stay are subject to the regulatory control of the state under the Foreigners Act, 1946. Because it is a trite law that a foreign national does not enjoy rights guaranteed under Article 19. The only fundamental right available to a foreigner is under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which does not confer any right to remain in India once a visa expires or is revoked," the report claimed. top videos View all The Ministry said the order would set a dangerous precedent and 'may be cited by foreign nationals to invoke Article 226 for personal repatriation", and the outcome 'threatens the integrity of constitutional separation and immigration enforcement alike," the report quoted. Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: July 02, 2025, 08:01 IST News india 'Judiciary Should Not Override...': Home Ministry On Pakistani Woman's Deportation, Says Report
The Hindu
01-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Judiciary should not override executive's decision to deport a foreign national: Home Ministry
The Union Home Ministry's (MHA) appeal against a Jammu and Kashmir High Court order to repatriate a 62-year-old housewife who was deported to Pakistan post Pahalgam terror attack said the 'judiciary should not override' the executive's decision to deport a foreign national. It said the High Court order was constitutionally impermissible and unsustainable, as it directed the enforcement of a judicial writ beyond the sovereign territory of India to Pakistan, where she was deported and was thus ultra vires. The Ministry also said that the court's direction was 'legally unenforceable and diplomatically untenable.' 'There exists no extradition treaty, legal instrument, or international obligation binding Pakistan to return her to India. The Indian government cannot, under existing international law, compel a sovereign nation to surrender a non-citizen,' the MHA said. The Home Ministry said 'courts must preserve the institutional boundaries necessary for effective governance' and the order, if allowed to stand, would establish a dangerous precedent. Staying for 38 years The MHA filed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) before a Division Bench of the High Court against a June 6 order by judge Rahul Bharti who directed the Union Home Secretary to bring back the petitioner Rakshanda Rashid in 10 days. Married to an Indian, Ms. Rashid had been staying in Jammu for 38 years on a Long-Term Visa (LTV), which was extended annually even as her citizenship application is pending with the MHA since 1996. On April 29, at the time of deportation, the LTV did not exist, the MHA said. Ms. Rashid had said in her petition that she applied for LTV renewal in January and the application was never rejected. After the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack, where 26 people were killed, the MHA cancelled the visas of all Pakistani citizens and asked them to leave the country by April 29. The order exempted those with LTVs or Pakistani women married to Indian citizens. The Ministry said that while passing the order, the single judge 'failed to appreciate the circumstances and the national security considerations and the reasonable apprehension posed by the Pakistani nationals staying in India on account of war-like situation between India and Pakistan.' It added that the order is 'contrary to the principles of judicial restraint in the matters concerning national security and international relations, particularly in dealing with the national of a hostile country.' It said the order was 'based on assumption that marriage to an Indian citizen entitles her to claim a right to reside in India or to have her deportation reopen.' 'Subject to control' 'It is well settled law that a foreign national does not acquire Indian nationality or legal residency rights solely by virtue of marriage. A foreigner does not possess a fundamental right to reside in India and their entry and stay are subject to regulatory control of the state under Foreigners Act, 1946. Because it is a trite law that a foreign national do not enjoy rights guaranteed under Article 19. The only fundamental right available to a foreigner is under Article 21 of the Constitution of India which does not confer any right to remain in India once a visa expires or is revoked,' the MHA said. The Ministry said the order would set a dangerous precedent and 'may be cited by foreign nationals to invoke Article 226 for personal repatriation' and the outcome 'threatens the integrity of constitutional separation and immigration enforcement alike.' The judiciary, by ordering the repatriation of a foreign national from another sovereign country, had encroached on into the domain of the Union Executive, whose functions under Article 73 include decisions regarding foreign relations, immigration policy, and national security, the Home Ministry said.
The Hindu
01-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
MHA appeals against J&K HC order to repatriate housewife deported to Pakistan after 38 years in India on long-term visa
The Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has appealed against an order of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court to repatriate Rakshanda Rashid, a 62-year-old housewife who was deported to Pakistan after the Pahalgam terror attack despite having lived in India on a long-term visa for almost four decades. The MHA filed a Letters Patent Appeal before a division bench of the High Court, against a June 6 order by Justice Rahul Bharti who had directed the Union Home Secretary to bring Ms. Rashid back to India within ten days. On Tuesday, Justice Bharti sought compliance from the MHA and gave the Ministry another ten days to file its reply on the matter. Ms. Rashid's counsel Ankur Sharma told The Hindu that the judge insisted on compliance from the MHA, noting that there is no stay on the order yet, despite an appeal having been filed. The appeal will be heard by the Chief Justice's Bench on Wednesday. Long-term visa holder After the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack which left 26 people dead, the MHA cancelled the visas of all Pakistani citizens and asked them to leave the country by April 29. The order exempted those with long-term visas as well as Pakistani women married to Indian citizens. Ms. Rashid fell in both categories, being a Pakistani citizen married to an Indian, living in Jammu for the past 38 years on a long-term visa which was renewed annually. She had applied for Indian citizenship in 1996 but the request was yet to be processed. 'Distorted facts' Ms. Rashid's daughter Fatima Sheikh said that her mother was forced out of India on April 28 by the police by 'distorting facts.' 'We are sad about the Pahalgam terror attack but on what basis was my mother expelled from India? We had applied for a long-term visa extension in January, yet the 'leave India' notice served by police said that we applied on March 8. On April 26, I got an e-mail from the [Foreigners Regional Registration Office] FRRO that the application was being processed, yet she is deported on April 28. On May 9, I again got an e-mail that the application had gone to higher authorities for approval,' Ms. Sheikh said. 'Rushed deportation' On April 28, police officials showed up outside their house at 7 a.m. and took Ms. Rashid to the Attari border checkpoint in Punjab from where she was deported, her daughter said. 'They did not let us even speak to our lawyers. They were in such a hurry to deport her. All her life she has lived in Jammu. How will she survive in Pakistan? It is so expensive there, she has no one there,' Ms. Sheikh said, adding that her mother has no relatives in Pakistan. For the past three months, Ms. Rashid has been living alone in a small hotel and has no money on her, she said. As reported by The Hindu on June 23, Justice Bharti had ordered the Union Home Secretary to 'retrieve' the petitioner from Pakistan 'given the exceptional nature of facts and circumstances of the case'. He added: 'Human rights are the most sacrosanct component of a human life and, therefore, there are occasions when a constitutional court is supposed to come up with SOS-like indulgence, notwithstanding the merits and demerits of a case.'
Indian Express
21-06-2025
- Indian Express
Disturbed Areas Act: HC directs Vadodara police to redress grievance of petitioner seeking to ‘enjoy property' bought in 2020
Stating that 'it is the duty of the state to maintain law and order', the Gujarat High Court has directed the Vadodara city police to remedy the grievance of a petitioner seeking police protection to 'enjoy their property' — four years after it ruled in favour of the petitioners following a controversy under the Disturbed Areas Act. In an oral order on June 19, Justice HD Suthar stated, 'Considering the orders passed in Special Criminal Application, Review Application as well as in Letters Patent Appeal, it appears that as the petitioners are owners of the property in question and they want to enjoy their property, (they) have approached the authority, more particularly the Police Inspector, Panigate Police Station, Vadodara on July 7, 2024… till date, nothing has been done…' According to the order, 'In view of the facts of the case and looking to the grievance of the petitioner, the respondent authority concerned is hereby directed to redress the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law as it is the duty of the State to maintain the law and order. If any adverse outcome is there, the petitioners are at liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum.' The owners of the property, Onali Ezazuddin Dholkawal and Iqbal Hussain Asgarali Tinwala, had moved the court in 2024 seeking directions against the Vadodara city police, particularly Panigate police station, 'to facilitate and effectuate the petitioners to enter and use their commercial property and repair and rehabilitate it'. The petitioners cited notices received from the Vadodara Municipal Corporation (VMC) with warning of the property being in a dilapidated condition and ordered it to be repaired during the period of the long-drawn litigation under the Disturbed Areas Act with multiple petitions. 'The petitioners were receiving notices dated July 1, 2019, September 24, 2021, and June 26, 2023, along with undated notices affixed on the premises by VMC as the property is in a dilapidated condition and is dangerous for the neighbours. But since the petitioners were not being allowed to enter inside the property, the petitioners could not take any steps for the same,' the petition stated. Stating that the petitioners requested police protection to enter the property by way of representation dated October 9, 2021, and also filed a written complaint against the neighbours in April 2022, the petitions stated, 'But somehow, the protection is not granted and no action was taken by the city police and eventually, the petitioners avoided entering the property in order to prevent any law and order situation or untoward incident… The petitioners sought such police protection last April 2024. But unfortunately, even thereafter the petitioners have not been able to enter and use the property… the neighbours and local corporators are creating hurdles and law and order situation.' The petition pointed out that despite being 'assured police protection', the city police has denied the same 'under one pretext or the other'. The petition stated that on July 22, 2024, accompanied by the city police, the petitioners tried to enter the property but 'the neighbours, along with politically influential persons and particularly local corporators… obstructed the entry of the petitioners in presence of police. The said incident was videographed and thus some of the photographs were also taken, which shows the corporators and other persons objecting to the entry of the petitioners.' Following alleged threats, the petitioners also submitted a written complaint to the police the next day, seeking an FIR, 'which has not been filed.' The petition stated that the Vadodara City police 'failed to discharge their statutory duties and obligations', which has 'resulted in gross violation of the Fundamental Rights of Article 14, 19 and 21 as enshrined under the Constitution of India' and also a violation of the previous orders of the Gujarat HC. The case pertains to a property located in the old city area of Vadodara, which falls under the purview of the The Gujarat Prohibition of Transfer of Immovable Property and Provision for Protection of Tenants from Eviction from Premises in Disturbed Areas Act, 1991, also known as the Disturbed Areas Act. The petitioners had sought permission under the Disturbed Areas Act in August 2016 from the Deputy Collector, Vadodara, which was rejected vide in January 2017. Therefore, the petitioners appealed before the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), which was also rejected in June 2018. In March 2020, the HC ruled in favour of the petitioners in a Special Civil Application and granted permission under the Disturbed Area Act. Thus, the sale deed of the petitioners' property was registered December 15, 2020. Even as the petitioners were not allowed to enter their property, the HC order in the Special Civil Application was challenged by way of review petition being filed by some private persons who were panchas (independent witnesses) to the panchnama prepared for grant of permission. Some 'disgruntled neighbours' also filed an application for being joined in the said review petition, which was rejected by the Gujarat HC in March 2022. The HC, in August 2023, dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal of private persons and imposed costs of Rs 50,000 on two panchas who had raised an objection to the sale of a property. The HC had questioned the motive of the two panchas and noted that they had made their declaration, expressing their 'no objection' to the transfer in 2016, and hence, the court had upheld the sale to be valid and not a distress sale in March 2020. Commissioner of Police, Vadodara, Narasimha Komar was unavailable for comments on Saturday.
United News of India
08-06-2025
- Health
- United News of India
DB stays order relaxing bond conditions to PG doctors
Shimla, June 8 (UNI) The Himachal Pradesh High Court has stayed a Single Bench order that had directed the release of original MBBS degrees and undated cheques to a group of doctors who had completed their postgraduate studies. The state government preferred a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA No. 285 of 2025) against the decision, arguing that the doctors were trying to avoid their legal obligation to serve in government health services as agreed under a bond. The division bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma stayed the impugned order, maintaining that the bond conditions and two years of mandatory service in the rural areas couldn't be relaxed once MBBS signed the bond. The State, represented by Advocate General Anup Rattan along with Pranay Pratap Singh and Swati Draik, told the court that each doctor had signed a bond of Rs 40 lakh in January 2022, agreeing to work for the State for two years after completing their course. They were also paid monthly stipends by the government during their studies. The policy behind the bond aims to ensure that trained doctors serve poor and rural areas of Himachal Pradesh. However, after the results were declared on April 7, 2025, the doctors wrote to the government on April 9, asking for the return of their degrees and cheques, claiming that they hadn't received field posting orders within the time limit set by the policy. The policy says that posting orders must be issued within one month of the result declaration, failing which the bond would not apply. The doctors argued that this condition was not met. The State disagreed, explaining that the candidates had only been officially relieved from their colleges on March 10, 2025, and that the posting orders were issued on April 10, 2025. They argued that the timeline should start from the relieving date, not the result date, and that the State had acted within the required time. The State further accused the doctors of trying to escape their service obligations while having already taken full benefit of the scheme for three years. The Division Bench found that the matter needs closer examination. The court noted that the doctors approached the court on April 23, 2025—after the government had already issued their posting orders. It questioned why the doctors didn't first seek enforcement of the postings if they were serious about joining service. As a result, the High Court stayed the Single Judge's directions to release the degrees and cheques. However, it allowed the part of the judgement that asked the State to take action against officials responsible for any delay in issuing the posting orders. The case would now be heard again on August 4, 2025. This case raises important questions about the enforcement of service bonds and the responsibilities of medical professionals who receive government-funded education. The court would consider whether the doctors' actions were genuine or an attempt to avoid public service duties. UNI ML ARN
