P M NOORJAHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a case where a wife espouses the cause of her husband in relation to an application for visa. She is an Indian citizen; her husband is not. He is an Iranian national residing in Dubai. The marriage is claimed to have taken place 13 years back. The wife could not proceed to Dubai as "her husband will be on tour in connection with his business for months together and in that event she and her children will be left alone in a foreign country without any assistance from any one." Attempts made by her husband to obtain visa had been unsuccessful. She felt that refusal of visa was possibly the result of a confusion regarding the identity of the applicant. Her husband is Yusuf Mohamed Galbeth as opposed to "Yusuf Mahamood Galbath." Her understanding is that "there is some case is pending against the latter." Under Ext. P2 the Government of India declined "to grant visa to Mr. Yusuf Mohammed Galbath for coming to India."

(2.) Ext. P2 is attacked on diverse grounds. Having been permitted to marry a foreigner, a duty is cast on the Government to issue visa to her husband "to come to India and stay with the petitioner at least for a limited period in a year", contends the petitioner. The denial of visa is complained of as violative of S.4, 9 and 17 of the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 and S.3 of the Foreigners Act. An infraction of the provisions contained in Art.14 and 38 of the Constitution is also alleged. According to her, her remedy to invoke S.18 of the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 is also defeated "because her husband is willing to come and stay with her in India". Violation of S.6 and 10 of the Indian Passport Act, is also urged as vitiating Ext. P2. Relying on the well known decision in Maneka Gandhi's case, AIR 1978 SC 597 , it is complained that the order results in the deprivation of the liberty of the petitioner and thus violates Art.21 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Grant of visa is a serious matter. This is particularly so in a situation when the Nation has to be on its alert. Judicial decisions in Immigration cases illustrate the sensitive nature of the issues and the complexities of the problems. The Government, ordinarily, would be the best Judge for the determination of matters connected with the grant of visa. The Government conferred with the necessary power is expected to exercise it on the basis of the information available with it and on a consideration of relevant circumstances. Concededly, there are circumstances indicating that a person by name Yusuf Mohammed Galbath is an undesirable person and is undeserving of a visa. That there has been a mistaken identity in respect of the applicant, has not been established in the present case. The person who requires the visa has not made the application. It is for him to furnish materials before the Government and to establish that he deserves the grant of visa. Contentions regarding the identity of the person should not be adjudicated by this court in a writ proceeding, at the instance of a person other than the applicant for the visa. It is inconceivable that a person who is mostly away in connection with his business could not make a direct application to the Government of India with satisfactory testimonials regarding his identity and his creditable character justifying the grant of visa. In the above circumstances, this court will not be justified in interfering with the exercise of the powers by the Government of India, in relation to the grant of visa.