R.I.Jebaraj v. Union of India & Ors.

2. Mr.Rajiah John Premkumar came to India by flight No.LH 758on 19.02.2008. But his landing at Chennai Airport was refused bythe second respondent. He was served with an order of the secondrespondent directing the airport authorities to remove him by thesame flight. Accordingly, he was deported to France by the sameflight. The petitioner came to know that the first respondent hadearlier issued an order restricting the petitioner’s brother’sentry into India without prior permission from the firstrespondent. However, the said order of the first respondent wasnot served on the brother of the petitioner. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Crl.O.P.No.6511 of 2008under Section 482 Cr.P.C., before this Court challenging the saidorder of the second respondent. When the matter was listed forfinal hearing, the second respondent produced the circular orderof the first respondent in Prior Reference Category (S.1) CircularNo.1/96 dated 03.10.1996 directing that visa or transit visa forIndia in favour of the brother of the petitioner should not begranted without prior reference to the Government of India. Thesaid circular is under challenge in this writ petition.4.The following are the main grounds raised in the writpetition:i.The impugned order lacks prudence and the same was passedwithout application of mind; further, there are no groundssatisfying para 3 of the Foreigners’ Order 1948 impelling thefirst respondent to issue such an order.ii.The impugned order came to be passed in violation ofprinciples of natural justice and the same further violatesArticle 14,19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.iii.The impugned order is a non-speaking order which does notassign any reason much less a proper reason for restricting theentry of the brother of the petitioner into India. Though theimpugned order is stated to have been passed in the year 1996,subsequently, the petitioner’s brother visited India on severaloccasions which had caused no prejudice to the interest of thenation and its security. The impugned order was not implementedfor several years which would show that there could be no reasonto restrict the petitioner’s brother’s entry into India.5. In the counter filed by the second respondent it has beencontended as follows:i).It is true that the petitioner’s brother was born andbrought up in Chennai and later, he became a French Nationalholding a French Passport. On 16.04.1995, under an entry visa, hecame down to India along with one Rev.Gunther Bright of German whohad a tourist visa. They attended a Christian conference organized https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ by one Pastor M.Ananda Rao and Sharrow Ministers Union atTadepalli Mandai, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. In the saidconference, the petitioner’s brother abused Hindu Gods, touredpictures of Hindu Gods, trampled upon them and later burnt them.The others in the conference were also induced to do so. Theentire incident was covered in a video film. In respect of thesaid conference, a case in Crime No.53 of 1995 was registered onthe file of the Tadepalli Police Station under Sections 295 and503(3) I.P.C., against Paster M.Ananda Rao and others. Chargesheet in the said case was laid by the police on completinginvestigation on 12.05.1995 before the learned Judicial Magistrateof I Class, Mangalagiri, Guntur District against Pastor Ananda Raoalone. In the mean while, the petitioner’s brother rushed back toChennai. The charge sheet was subsequently returned by the learnedJudicial Magistrate directing to clarify as to why the othersinvolved in the offence were not arrayed as accused. Since thepetitioner’s brother and Mr.Gunther Bright left for London on19.07.1995 and on 31.07.1995 respectively, they could not bebrought to Court to face the prosecution. Thereafter, the learnedJudicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence in the caseagainst Pastor M.Ananda Rao in C.C.No.77 of 1995. However, thecase ended in acquittal.ii)In view of the above occurrence which created unrest anddis-harmony among two religions, the Bureau of Immigrationrecommended to the first respondent to issue a ban for futureentry of the petitioner’s brother and Mr.Rev.Gunther Bright.Based on the said recommendation the first respondent issued theimpugned circular in the interest of the Nation's security, peaceand harmony. The circular stipulates that the petitioner’sbrother and others narrated in the circular should not be allowedto enter India even on the strength of valid passport withoutprior clearance of the Government of India.iii)The counter further proceeds to say that the petitioner’sbrother had knowledge of issuance of the impugned circular even in1996. To circumvent the same, he obtained a new French Passportbearing No.03TE75095 from Senlis, France on 13.10.2003 in the nameof Johan Rajiah S/o Rajiah and came to India on several occasionsbetween 2006-2007 by securing multiple entry visa from the HighCommission of India at London. Though the petitioner’s brotherclaims to be a French citizen, he had obtained visa from theIndian High Commission at London without approaching the IndianEmbassy at Paris, for the reasons best known to him. Since thepetitioner’s brother had used the Passport in the different name,namely, in the name of John Premkumar Rajiah S/o Rajiah his entryinto India could not be noticed and prevented. Thus, he hadcheated the Government and entered India on several occasions.Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner’sbrother was allowed to enter India during the interregnum periodand the impugned was not implemented cannot be accepted. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ iv)In respect of the contention of the petitioner that hisbrother was never known as Johan Rajiah and he never changed hisname, the records of the second respondent would clearly establishthat on earlier occasions, the petitioner had entered India on adifferent passport in a different name whereas the presentpassport was obtained only in the year 2003. The change of thename of the petitioner’s brother in the passport and his visits toIndia in different names came to the knowledge of the secondrespondent when he received a complaint from one Venkata Prasad,of Andhra Pradesh. On the basis of the said complaint, whenrecords were perused, it came to light that the petitioner’sbrother had tried to circumvent the impugned circular and tried toenter India through Chennai Airport. That is why, he was refusedpermission to land and enter India and he was sent back by thevery same flight.v).It is further contended in the counter that it is thesovereign power of the Government to obstruct a foreigner fromentering India in the interest of the National Security, peace,harmony etc. and the said power is absolute and not restricted inany manner. vi).It is further contended that the writ petition itself isnot maintainable since the same has not been filed by the personallegedly aggrieved by the order. The petitioner cannot be statedto be aggrieved, and so, he has no locus standi to maintain thiswrit petition. For all these reasons, the respondents pray fordismissal of the writ petition.6.I have heard the learned senior counsel Mr.V.T.Gopalanappearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional SolicitorGeneral of India appearing for the respondents. I have alsoperused the records carefully. 7.Admittedly, the petitioner's brother is a foreigner. Thereis some dispute regarding the name of the petitioner's brother. Itis the case of the petitioner that his brother's name is "RajaiahJohnPremkumar" whereas according to the respondents, his name wasoriginally "Rev.Johan Rajaiah", but subsequently, he changed hisname as "John Premkumar Rajaiah". Admittedly, he holds a FrenchPassport and flew to India on the strength of a visa issued by theIndian High Commission in London. It is also the admitted casethat before passing the impugned order, no opportunity was givento him to submit his explanation. 8.The foremost contention of the learned Senior CounselMr.V.T.Gopalan, appearing for the petitioner is that, since theimpugned circular order came to be passed without following theprinciples of natural justice, the same is vitiated. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9.Per contra, the learned Additional Solicitor General wouldcontend that the concept of opportunity to satisfy the principlesof natural justice is not available to a foreigner as the same isavailable only to the citizens of this Country. 10.To resolve the above question, it will be useful to referto various judgments relied on by the learned counsel on eitherside and also the relevant statutes. 11.Admittedly, the impugned order came to be passed by thecentral Government in exercise of the powers conferred underSection 3 of the Foreigners Act. The said provision reads asfollows:-"1. The Central Government may by order makeprovision, either generally or with respect toall foreigners or with respect to any particularforeigner or any prescribed class or descriptionof foreigner, for prohibiting, regulating orrestricting the entry of foreigners into(India)or their departure therefrom or their presenceor continued presence therein.2) In particular and without prejudice to thegenerality of the foregoing power, orders madeunder this Section may provide that theforeigner_(a) shall not enter (India) or shall enter(India) only at such times and by such route andat such port or place and subject to theobservance of such conditions on arrival as maybe prescribed;b) shall not depart from (India) or shalldepart only at such times and by such route andfrom such port or place and subject to theobservance of such conditions on departure asmay be prescribed;c) shall not remain in (India) or in anyprescribed area therein;(cc) shall, if he has been required by orderunder this section not to remain in India, meetfrom any resources at this disposal the cost ofhis removal from India and of his maintenancetherein pending such removald) shall remove himself to, and remain in, sucharea in (India) as may be prescribed; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ e)shall comply with such conditions as may beprescribed or specified:i) requiring him to reside in a particularplace;ii) imposing any restrictions on his movements;iii)requiring him to furnish such proof of hisidentity and to report such particulars tosuch authority in such manner and at such timeand place as may be prescribed or specified;iv) requiring him to allow his photograph andfinger impressions to be taken and to furnishspecimens of his handwriting and signature tosuch authority and at such time and place as maybe prescribed or specified;v) requiring him to submit himself to suchmedical examination by such authority and atsuch time and place as may be prescribed orspecified;vi) prohibiting him from association withpersons of a prescribed or specifieddescription;vii) prohibiting him from engaging in activitiesof a prescribed or specified description;viii) prohibiting him from using or possessingprescribed or specified articles;ix)otherwise regulating his conduct in any suchparticular as may be prescribed or specified;f. shall enter into a bond with or withoutsureties for the due observance of, or as analternative to the enforcement of, any or allprescribed or specified restrictions orconditions;g. shall be arrested and detained or confined:and may make provision (for any matter which isto be or may be prescribed) and for suchincidental and supplementary matters as may, inthe opinion of the Central Government, beexpedient or necessary for giving effect to hisAct. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

12.There is no express provision in the Act which provides foropportunity to a foreigner before any order is passed against himby the Central Government under Section 3 of the said Act. Theabove position was considered by a Constitution Bench of theHon’ble Supreme Court in Hans Muller of Nurenburg v.Superintendent, Presidency Jain, Calcutta and others (AIR 1955 SC367). In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court hascategorically held that a foreigner’s right to life is guaranteedin India under Article 21 of the Constitution of India whereasnone of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 of theConstitution of India is available to a foreigner. While dealingwith the scope of the Foreigner’s Act, in the context of Articles19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Courtin paragraph No.36 of the said judgment has held as follows:“36.The Foreigners Act confers the power toexpel foreigners from India. It vests theCentral Government with absolute and unfettereddiscretion and as there is no provisionfettering this discretion in the Constitution,an unrestricted right to expelremains........."" .......A foreigner has no such right and hecan be expelled without any formality beyond themaking of an order by the CentralGovernment...... 40.In the case of expulsion, no idea ofpunishment is involved, at any rate, in theoryand if a man is prepared to leave voluntarily hecan ordinarily go as and when he pleases. Butthe right is not his. Under the Indian Law, thematter is left to the unfettered discretion ofthe Union Government and that Government canprescribe the route and the port or place ofdeparture and can place him on a particularship or plane.......... 41.........We have already examined the lawmaking power in this behalf and its scope, andas to the third question, the law on this matterin India is embodied in the Foreigners Act whichgives an unfettered right to Union Government toexpel......"(Emphasis supplied)13.Relying heavily on the above, the learned AdditionalSolicitor General of India would submit that since the power ofthe Government under Section 3 of the Foreigners Act is unfettered https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in any manner, there is no need at all to give any opportunity toa foreigner before passing any order against him under Section 3of the Act. He would emphazise that the Supreme Court has heldthat no other formality need be followed while making an orderunder Section 3 of the Act. At the first glimpse there appears tobe force in the said argument of the learned Additional SolicitorGeneral of India. 14.But, Mr.V.T.Gopalan, the learned Senior Counsel, wouldsubmit that the law laid down by the Hon’ble Constitution Bench ofthe Supreme Court in Hans Muller of Nurenburg’s case has got noapplication to the facts of the present case. He would submit thatsubsequent to the above judgment, the United Nations Internationalcovenant on Civil and Political rights came into being in the year1966, and as per Article 13 of the said covenant, a foreigner isentitled to know the reasons for his expulsion and has right ofrepresentation before any order is passed. There can be nocontroversy that under Article 51 of the Indian Constitution, theCentral Government has to foster respect for international law andtreaty obligations in the dealings of organized people with oneanother. In view of the said constitutional obligation, there canbe hardly any doubt that the Central Government should respectArticle 13 of the United Nations International covenant on Civiland Political rights, which reads as follows:- ""An alien lawfully in the territory of a StateParty to the present Covenant may expelledtherefrom only in pursuance of a decisionreached in accordance with law and shall,except where compelling reasons of nationalsecurity otherwise require, be allowed tosubmit the reasons against his expulsion and tohave his case reviewed by, and be representedfor the purpose before the competent authorityor a person or persons especially designated bythe competent authority."15.A conjoint reading of the above provision along withSection 3 of the Foreigners Act, would make it clear that aforeigner is entitled to know the reasons for his proposedexpulsion and also he is entitled for an opportunity to representhis case before the competent authority. Of course, where thereare compelling reasons involving the national security etc., thesaid procedure need not be followed. 16.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for thepetitioner, since there was no analogues provision like Article13 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil andPolitical rights when Hans Muller of Nurenburg’s case was decided, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the law laid down by the Constitution Bench cannot be madeapplicable to the cases arising subsequent to the advent of theUnited Nations International covenant on civl and political rights1966.17.After the advent of the United Nations InternationalCovenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, the very samequestion came up for consideration in Louis De Raed VS Union ofIndia (1991) 3 SCC 554 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, afterreferring to Hans Muller of Nurenburg's case has held inparagraph 13 of the judgment as follows: "13.The fundamental right of a foreigneris confined to Article 21 for right to lifeand liberty and does not include the right toreside and stay in this Country as mentionedin Article 19(1)(e), as the said right isguaranteed, only to the citizens of thiscountry. The power of the Government of Indiato expel a foreigner is absolute and unlimitedand there is no provision in the Constitutionfettering this discretion."“As regards the right to be heard, therecannot be any hard and fast rule about themanner in which a person concerned has to begiven an opportunity to place his case and itis not claimed that if the authority concernedhad served a notice before passing impugnedorder, the petitioners could have produced somerelevant materials in support of their claim ofacquisition of citizenship, which they failedto do in the absence of a notice.”18.Ofcourse, no reference has been made about theInternational Covenant 1966 in the said judgment, but the Hon'bleSupreme Court has made a slight deviation from Hans Muller ofNurenburg's case so as to rule out the impossibility ofopportunity being given to the foreign nationals before any orderof expulsion is passed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has indicatedthat though there cannot be any hard and fast rule about themanner in which the person concerned has to be given anopportunity, nevertheless, the Court has ruled by implication thatthe right to make representation on service of notice inappropriate cases does exist. 19.In Sarbananda Sonowal VS Union of India and anotherreported in(2005) 5 Supreme Court Cases 665, after elaboratelydealing with the various provisions and after making a specificreference to United Nations International Covenant on Civil andPolitical Rights,1966, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respect of an alien who is lawfully in India under a validpassport and visa, he is entitled to have an opportunity torepresent before an order of expulsion is passed. The Hon'bleSupreme Court has held in paragraph 75 as follows:-"75........Like the power to refuseadmission this is regarded as an incident of theState's Territorial sovereignty. Internationallaw does not prohibit the expulsion en masse ofaliens. (p.351). Reference has also been made toArticle 13 of the International Covenant of 1966on Civil and Political Rights which providesthat an alien lawfully in the territory of aState party to the Covenant may be expelled onlypursuant to a decision reached by law and exceptwhere compelling reasons of national securityotherwise require, is to be allowed to submitthe reasons against his expulsion and to havehis case reviewed by and to be represented forthe purpose before the competent authority. Itis important to note that this Covenant of 1966would apply provided an alien is lawfully inIndia, namely, with valid passport, visa, etc.,and not to those who have entered illegally orunlawfully. Similar view has been expressed inOppenheim's International Law (Ninth Edn. 1992in paras 400,401 and 413). The author has saidthat the reception of aliens is a matter ofdiscretion, and every State is by reason of itsterritorial supremacy, competent to excludealiens from the whole or any part of itsterritory. In para 413 it is said that theright of States to expel aliens is generallyrecognised. It matters not whether the alien isonly on a temporary visit, or has settled downfor professional business or any other purposesin its territory, having established hisdomicile there. A belligerent may consider itconvenient to expel all hostile nationalsresiding or temporarily staying within itsterritory, although such a measure may be veryharsh on individual aliens, it is generallyaccepted that such expulsion is justifiable.Having regard to Article 13 of the InternationalCovenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966,an alien lawfully in a State's territory may beexpelled only in pursuance of a decision reachedin accordance with law."20.In the above judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court hasobviated doubt, if any, and has held in clear terms that after theadvent of the International Covenant on Civil and Political https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Rights, 1966,any order of expulsion of a foreigner from India whohas a valid passport and visa could be passed only after affordingsufficient opportunity to him except in exceptional cases wheresecurity of the nation would be put to perils imminently if suchan order of expulsion is not passed forthwith without notice. 21.In Hasan Ali Aihany VS Union of India and othersreported in (2006) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 33, while dealingwith an identical question, a Division Bench of the Hon'bleSupreme Court has taken a similar view. In paragraph 8 of thejudgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:"8.Having regard to the facts andcircumstances of the case, particularly,having regard to the fact that the petitionerhas entered this country legally upon thesingle entry permit issued to him, it is onlyfair that the competent authority must informhim the reasons for his deportation. If such adecision is taken, the petitioner must begiven an opportunity to submit hisrepresentation against his proposedexpulsion. The competent authority maythereafter, consider his representation andpass appropriate order. As observed by thisCourt, this procedure may be departed fromfor compelling reasons of national security,etc. In the instant case, we have not so farnoticed any fact which may provide acompelling reason for the State not to observethis procedure."22.But the learned Additional Solicitor General would submitthat since Sarbananda Sonowal 's case was decided by a coram ofthree Hon'ble judges and Hasan Ali Aihany's case was decided by acoram of two Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court, the law laiddown in those two judgments cannot be binding precedents as thelaw laid down by the constitutional bench in Sarbananda Sonowal 'scase alone is binding. I am not persuaded by the said argumentfor the simple reason that, as I have already stated, thejudgments in Sarbananda Sonowal's case and Hasan Ali Aihany's casewere subsequent to the advent of the United Nations InternationalCovenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 whereas the judgmentof the Constitution Bench was prior to the said covenant and so,the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in Hans Muller ofNurenburg's case cannot be made applicable to the post covenantcases. 23.The learned Additional Solicitor General of India hasrelied on a judgment of a learned single judge of this Court(Hon'ble Justice Shivaraj Patil, as he then was) wherein,following the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Hans Muller https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of Nurenburg's case, has held that the Central Government isvested with absolute and unfettered discretion and unrestrictedright to expel a foreigner and there is no need to offer anyopportunity to a foreigner before an order is passed, as theprinciple of natural justice can have no application to aforeigner. 24.The learned Senior Counsel Mr.V.T.Gopalan, relies on ajudgment of another single Judge of this Court in an unreportedcase in W.P.No.24647 of 2008 wherein by order dated 23.10.2008,the learned Judge has held that the competent authority mustinform the foreigner the reasons for his deportation and beforepassing the order of deportation, the foreigner should be given anopportunity to submit his representation as against the proposeddeportation and such representation submitted by the foreigner hasto be considered before passing any order. In the said case, thelearned Judge has followed Sarbananda Sonowal's case and Hasan AliAihany's case.25.From all the above judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Courtand this Court, I have to necessarily hold that before any orderof expulsion under Section 3 of the Foreigners Act is passed,unless there are compelling reasons involving threat to thesecurity of the nation, the foreign national is entitled fornotice and an opportunity for making representation.26.In the case on hand, in the counter, in respect ofopportunity of being heard, it has been stated as follows: "The Sovereign power of the Indian Union canbe invoked to ban the entry of any foreignerinto India and the Government need not explainor give an opportunity to such foreigner toimpose such ban and the lack of power asstated by the petitioner is unsustainable inlaw. It is not for the petitioner to suggestwhich act of the Government will be prudent inthe given circumstances. It is respectfullysubmitted that there is absolutely noinfringement of any fundamental rights of thepetitioner’s brother, as he being a foreignerdoes not have any fundamental right. Hence,ground (a) and (o) have no merits in them. TheUnion of India need not state any reason toban the entry of a foreigner. It is enough ifit is satisfied that there exists some basisfor taking such decision for in such mattersthe Government is exercising its SoverignPowers." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

27.Reiterating the above stand taken in the counter, thelearned Additional Solicitor General would submit that it is theabsolute and unfettered Sovereign Power of the Government; inexercise of the same only, the impugned order has been passed andthere is no need to offer any opportunity to a foreigner beforepassing any order regulating or banning the entry of a foreigner.28.As concluded above, if the order under challenge is in thenature of an order of expulsion of a foreigner from Indian soil,necessarily notice should have been given by the centralGovernment to the foreigner to afford an opportunity to him tomake representation. The entire argument of Mr.V.T.Gopalan, thelearned Senior Counsel, was under the premise that the impugnedorder is an order of expulsion. But I am unable to subscribe tothe said contention. Admittedly, the petitioner’s brother was notin Indian soil and so, the impugned order cannot be construed tobe an order of expulsion at all. As rightly pointed out by therespondents in the counter, the impugned order is only an orderbanning the entry of the petitioner’s brother into India withoutreference to the central Government. Nowhere it has been held inany of the judgments cited supra that before passing any orderunder Section 3 of the Foreigners Act r/w Clause 3 of theForeigners Order 1948 such a notice should be given to theforeigner and he should be afforded an opportunity of being heardbefore passing an order prohibiting the entry of the foreigner. Asheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hans Muller v. Supdt.,Presidency Jail, Calcutta’s case (cited supra) for passing anorder either regulating or banning the entry of any foreigner intoIndia, it is the absolute and unfettered discretion of the centralGovernment. The said soverign power is unlimited and unrestricted.The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and PoliticalRights 1966 does not speak of any such opportunity to be given toany foreign national in respect of prohibitory or regulatoryorders. As I have already stated, in Gilles Preifer v. The Union oIndia & others, Sarbananda Sonowal's case and Hasan Ali Aihany'scase, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in clear terms that thesoverign power of the central Government is absolute and hasfurther held that only in the matter of expulsion of a foreignnational who has already been allowed to be in Indian soil, inview of the International covenant 1966, such a notice andopportunity should be given to him before expelling him. But inrespect of an order banning the entry of a national into India,the central Government need not state any reason as to why suchban order is imposed on him and it need not give any opportunityor notice to the foreign national. The Constitution of India doesnot contain any provision obliging the central Government to issuenotice affording an opportunity. The right to life guaranteedunder Article 21 which is available to any foreign national doesnot engulf into its ambit a right to a foreign national to compelthe central Government either to allow him to enter into India orto afford an opportunity to make representation or to state the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ reasons for such a ban. Therefore, the contention of the learnedSenior Counsel that the impugned order is vitiated on the groundthat the same came to be passed without affording any opportunityto the petitioner deserves only to be rejected.29.The next contention is that there are no grounds satisfyingparagraph No.3 of the Foreigners Order 1948 impelling the firstrespondent to issue such an order. As I have already stated, aforeigner does not have any right to demand the central Governmentto state the grounds on which the order banning his entry intoIndia is passed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in categoricalterms that it is the absolute and unfettered soverign power of thecentral Government. Therefore, the said contention is alsorejected.30.Yet another ground of attack is that the impugned order isa non speaking order and so the same is vitiated. In my consideredopinion, the purpose of insisting for a speaking order is to putthe adverse party on notice as to the grounds on which theadverse order came to be passed. But, in the instant case, sincethere is no obligation on the part of the Government to state thereasons, there is no need to pass any speaking order. Further,when the national interest in the matter of security, peace andharmony is the primary concern of the Government, while taking adecision to ban the entry or to regulate the entry of a foreignnational into this nation, one cannot expect the Government tomake the reasons public by passing a speaking order as the samewould not be in the interest of the nation. Thus, the concept ofspeaking order is foreign to a foreigner whose entry into thiscountry is sought to be prohibited.31.For the foregoing discussions, I find no reason to quashthe impugned circular order. But, at the same time, it requires tobe clarified that, admittedly, the impugned order is not anabsolute ban imposed on the petitioner’s brother from visitingIndia. The order only stipulates that visa, in any form, shouldnot be issued in favour of the brother of the petitioner withoutprior reference to the Government of India. The visa issued to himby the Indian High Commission at London on 03.11.2003 has alreadyexpired on 02.11.2008 itself. If the petitioner’s brother isreally interested to visit India for genuine reasons withoutdisturbing in any manner the peace, harmony and security of thenation, he is at liberty to apply for visa afresh in which case,the High Commission shall make a reference to the centralGovernment and subject to the decision of the central Government,the High Commission shall issue appropriate order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

32.In the result, the writ petition fails and the same isaccordingly dismissed however, with the clarification indicatedabove. No costs.jbm/pal Sd/- Assistant Registrar / True Copy / Sub. Assistant Registrar To1. The Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.2. The Immigration Officer, Bureau of Immigration, Rep. by the Immigration Officer, Chnnai Airport, Chennai.27. 1 cc to Mr.Abudukumar Rajaratnam, Advocate, sr.2431la (co)dv/6.2.Pre-Delivery Order made inW.P.No. 25613 of 2008