Policy to deny entry to sex offender upheld: Gujarat high court

AHMEDABAD: In an important judgment, the Gujarat high court on Friday upheld the central government's decision to not allow entry to India of a person of Indian origin and a US citizen because he has been convicted of a sexual offence against a minor.
Justice Biren Vaishnav dismissed a petition filed by a 30-year-old from Karamsad in Anand district, who later obtained a US passport, with the observation that the Indian government can deport a person in accordance with its guideline that foreigners who are morally depraved are not permitted to set foot on Indian soil.
The US citizen filed the petition after the immigration authorities at Ahmedabad airport refused him entry on December 27, 2022, on the basis of the endorsement on his US passport, "The bearer was convicted of a sex offence against a minor, and is covered sex offender pursuant to 22 United States Code Section 212b(c)(1)."
The entry was prohibited and the man was deported according to the Foreigners Order, 1948. He went to Dubai and from there he approached the HC, stating that he had a valid e-visa and he should have been allowed entry so that he could celebrate his marriage on January 7 as he had got married on March 1, 2022, the last time he came to India. He also challenged the cancellation of his e-visa by Indian government on December 29.
Opposing the plea, assistant solicitor general Devang Vyas produced an Office Memorandum of March 30, 2021, providing revised guidelines for blacklisting foreign nationals who are convicted of charges such as rape etc. or who are found to be morally depraved.
Accepting the Centre's stand, Justice Vaishnav observed, "In the exercise of a statutory power flowing from the provisions of Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, guidelines have been issued that foreigners who are morally depraved are not permitted to enter the territorial limits of India.
The country is within its rights to prescribe norms valid to prevent such people from setting foot on Indian soil." The court also noted that celebration of marriage is not an exceptional reason for the country to bend its policy.
The court also accepted the Centre's argument about the maintainability of the petition invoking rights under Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution by a US passport holder, who is not even present in India and whose petition was signed by his father. "Life and liberty of a person not on the shore of India, cannot be invoked on his behalf when the individual himself is not in India," the court said.