Entry (X) Visa & Blacklisting of Foreign National Spouse of Indian Citizen – Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946
Judgment dated 13.11.2025 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Writ Petition No.554 of 2025 (F) of Sachin Viswanath Naik and another Vs. Union of India and others
Entry (X) Visa for Spouse – Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and Consolidated Guidelines of 2023 on Blacklisting of Foreign National.
The petitioner no.2 is the wife of the petitioner no.1 who is Indian citizen and resident of Goa. The petitioner no.2 is a Finnish citizen and married to the petitioner no.1 under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
The petitioner no.2 had visited India on e-Tourist Visa during 2023 and 2024.
On 11.9.2024, the petitioner no.2 had applied for e-Business visa. The Bureau of Immigration, India, approved the e-Business Visa valid till 10.9.2025.
On 12.9.2024, the petitioner no.2 arrived in India from Nepal on e-Business Visa and married the petitioner no.1 on 27.10.2024 in Mumbai. The marriage was registered under the Special Marriages Act, 1954. Thereafter, the petitioners travelled to Turkey.
On 27.11.2024, on arrival at Mumbai International Airport, the petitioner no.2 was denied entry in India and compelled to return back to Turkey.
The petitioner no.2 had applied for fresh Entry X Visa as spouse of the petitioner no.1. On 14.1.2025, the petitioner no.2 was informed that Entry visa application has been accepted for one year.
However, on 4.2.2025, the respondent no.1 informed the petitioner no.2 that at the moment it is not possible to issue any kind of Visa.
The petitioner no.2 is blacklisted in Category A of the Consolidated Guidelines for Blacklisting of Foreign Nationals (MHA Guidelines) issued on 29.3.2023. In a way, it is permanent and this can be renewed only after ten years. This speaks volumes about the repercussions and the far-reaching effect of the blacklisting on the petitioner no.2, who will be continuously under surveillance of security agencies for a period of ten years.
HELD that the action of unilaterally blacklisting the petitioner no.2 is manifestly arbitrary and unreasonable. Respondent no.3 ought to have adhered to the principles of natural justice to deal with the allegations made in the complaint on the sole basis of which the respondents have taken such a drastic and far-reaching step of blacklisting the petitioner no.2. However, the modalities and the extent of affording such opportunity is the domain of the respondents.
Bombay HC at Goa – Denial of Entry X Visa – Clarifies that foreign national married to Indian Citizen is entitled to constitutional protection
From Surveillance to Safeguards : Bombay HC Clarifies Limits of Look Out Circulars
