Bombay High Court Directs Centre to Decide Yemeni National's Visa Extension Plea
The Bombay High Court has issued a directive to the Central government, ordering it to make an expeditious decision on a Yemeni national's application for visa extension. The court has set a strict timeline of eight weeks for the authorities to resolve this long-pending matter.
Background of the Case
Fahd Saeed, the Yemeni national in question, originally arrived in India on a student visa in 2007 to pursue his studies in Pune. In 2011, he married an Indian national, which should have facilitated his stay under spousal provisions. However, complications arose due to procedural lapses.
According to the Centre's submission, Fahd has been without a valid visa since 2014. This situation stemmed from his failure to register within the mandated 14-day period after entry, as required for spouses of Indian citizens. Special Public Prosecutor Rui Rodrigues, representing the Foreigner Regional Registration Office (FRRO), highlighted this as a first violation.
Key Court Observations
The bench, comprising Justices Sarang Kotwal and Sandesh Patil, noted a critical point during the proceedings. Rodrigues made a very categorical statement that authorities have not uncovered any material to suggest Fahd poses a threat to national security. This absence of security concerns played a significant role in the court's deliberations.
In light of this, and considering Fahd's established family life in India—he has two small children with his Indian wife—the bench urged the authorities to give due consideration to his plea. The court emphasized that if the visa extension is granted, Fahd must promptly apply under Section 7A of the Citizenship Act, with such applications to be processed on an urgent basis.
Humanitarian Considerations and Legal Safeguards
The High Court also incorporated humanitarian safeguards into its order. It stipulated that if the visa extension is rejected, no coercive action should be taken against Fahd for an additional four weeks. This grace period is intended to allow him sufficient time to file an appeal against the decision.
The petition was filed by Harjinder Kaur, 34, seeking relief for her husband. Initially framed as a habeas corpus plea alleging illegal custody, it has evolved as Fahd is no longer under any restrictions. However, the core issue of his undocumented stay in India remains contentious.
Legal Arguments and Submissions
Wesley Menezes, the lawyer representing the petitioner, argued for an early decision on the visa extension plea, which was first made in 2015. He explained that due to the unstable conditions in Yemen, Fahd had to obtain a passport from Kuala Lumpur and had no intention of staying illegally in India.
Menezes further submitted that Fahd faced a criminal prosecution in India, from which he was ultimately acquitted. This detail underscores the complexities of his case beyond mere visa issues.
Court's Final Directions
The bench acknowledged the potential family separation if the visa is not extended, a factor the authorities can consider. The court stated, "Therefore, the law will have to take its own course and authorities will have to act within the four corners of the law with humanitarian ground as a background."
The Centre informed the court that the 2024 visa extension plea was pending due to the ongoing petition. It assured that if the court issues directions, the FRRO will consider the plea in a time-bound manner, leading to the court's eight-week directive.
This case highlights the intersection of immigration law, humanitarian concerns, and procedural adherence, setting a precedent for similar future matters.
