Holding

When an alien has entered India on a valid visa, the competent authority must disclose the reasons for any proposed deportation and afford the alien a reasonable opportunity to make a representation before passing an order.

Summary

Hasan Ali Raihany, born in India to Iranian parents, was deported in October 2005 without being told the reasons. He later obtained a Single Entry Permit from the Indian Embassy in Tehran and re‑entered India, but was repeatedly summoned to the Kurla Police Station and feared further deportation without due process. He filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking a mandamus to quash the cancellation of his residence visa, to compel the authorities to disclose the reasons for any proposed expulsion, and to allow him to remain in India. The Court examined international law, particularly the ICCPR, and prior Supreme Court decisions (Sarbananda Songwal and NHRC v. State of Arunachal Pradesh) which require that a lawfully present alien be informed of the grounds for deportation and be given an opportunity to be heard. Holding that Raihany entered India lawfully on a valid permit, the Court directed the competent authority to communicate the reasons for deportation, give him two weeks to make a representation, and continue reporting to the police until a final order is passed. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed as infructuous.

Issues considered

Whether a lawfully entered alien must be informed of the reasons for deportation and be given an opportunity to be heard under international law and Indian jurisprudence.
Whether the order cancelling the petitioner’s residence visa can be quashed.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to continue reporting to the police pending a final decision.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 32
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)s. Article 13

Subjects

deportationaliendue processsingle entry permitArticle 32International lawright to be heardexpulsionmandamusresidence visa

Judgment

r

A HASAN ALI RAIHANY
v.
U.0.1 AND ORS.

MARCH 9, 2006

B [B.P. SINGH AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.)

International law:

Deportation-Petitioner entered India on Single Entry Permit granted
C by Indian Embassy at Tehran-Apprehending that like earlier he might be
deported suddenly without intimating to him reasons therefor-Held, since the
petitioner has entered the country legally upon the Single Entry Permit, the
competent authority must inform him the reasons for his deportation-If such
a decision is taken the petitioner must be given an opportunity to submit his
D representation against his proposed expulsion-The competent authority may
thereafter consider his representation and pass appropriate order-Any order
passed shall be communicated to the petitioner forthwith-In case an adverse
order is passed against the petitioner, it shall not be given effect for a period
of seven days from the date of service of that order on the petitioner so that
he may seek appropriate legal remedy, if so advised.
E
Sarbananda Songwal v. Union of India & Anr., [20051 5 SCC 665,
relied on.

National Himan Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh &
Anr., [199611 SCC 742, cited.
F +
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (Criminal)
No. 17 of 2006.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)

G WITH

Crl. M.P. No. 2098/06 in and SLP Crl. No ....... ./06.

A.V. Savant, S.V. Deshpande and Mrs. Anuradha Rustogi for the
Appellant.
H 1158
1
HASAN ALI RAIHANY v. U.0.1 [B.P. SINGH, J.] 1159

A. Sharan, ASG, U.U. Lalit, Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Manish Tiwari, A
Shishir Pinaki, Amit Anand Tiwari, Ms. Sushma Suri and Vivek Sood for the
Respondents.

The Order of the Court was delivered by

B.P. SINGH, J. B
In W.P. (Crl.) No. 1712006:

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of
mandamus quashing the order cancelling the Residence Visa Permit by order
dated 7th October, 2005. He has also prayed for directions to the respondent C
to produce the papers relating to grant of Indian citizenship to him by
naturalisation. He further prays that this Court may issue a writ of certiorari
quashing and setting aside the oral direction or order of deportation passed
by the respondents and allow the petitioner to enter the Indian territory.

The case of the petitioner is that he was born in India to parents who D
were Iranian citizens. He was educated in India and thereafter intended to
stay in India. He applied for grant of Indian passport on I 5th July, 2003 in
response whereto he was required to comply with certain formalities. It appears
that on the night intervening 7th/8th October, 2005, the petitioner was deported
to Tehran. His grievance is that he was never informed as to why such action E
was taken against him. Be that as it may, he applied again to the Indian
Embassy in Tehran to grant him entry visa enabling him to enter this country
so that he could settle his pending matters in this country. According to the
petitioner, he has been doing business in this country and, therefore, his
sudden deportation has created complications for him, and it became absolutely
necessary for him to come to India to settle those matters. A Single Entry F
Permit was issued to the petitioner by the.- Indian Embassy in Iran which was
valid for the period from 8th November, 2005 to 8th February, 2006. On that
basis, the petitioner has re-entered this country.

The petitioner states that he is being summoned to the Kurla Police
Station every day and is being unnecessarily harassed. His suspicion is that G
he may again be deported in the same manner as was done on the last
occasion without intimating him the reasons why he is sought to be deported
and without giving him an opportunity of being heard.

We may observe that earlier, a Residential Permit was issued to the H
1160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] 2 S.C.R.

A petitioner which has been extended from time to time and which stood
extended till 3rd December, 2007. However, while deporting him, the
authorities cancelled the Residential Permit.

Thus, the factual position as of today is that the petitioner has entered
this country on the basis of a Single Entry Visa validity issued to him by the
B Indian Embassy at Tehran. It is also stated that the fact that the petitioner had
been deported from this country was mentioned in the application for grant
of Entry Visa and that nothing was concealt:d.

The question that arises for consideration is whether the authorities
C intend to deport him again and if so, whether they am obliged to disclose to
the petitioner the reasons for his proposed dt:portation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this
Court repo1ted in National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunacha/
Pradesh and Anr., (1996) I SCC 742 and particularly to the principles laid
D down in paragraph 19 thereof and submitted that the petitioner cannot be
thrown out of this country having regard to the fact that he was born in this
country and lived here for many years and his application for grant of Indian
citizenship is still pending. It is not as if he has entered the te1Titory of India
stealthily with any ulterior objective and, therefore, it is only proper, even
though he is not an Indian citizen, that he should atleast be informed of the
E reasons why he is sought to be deported, and his representation if any in this
regard considered. The learned Additional Solicitor General has fairly brought
to our notice the principles laid down by this Court in Sarbananda Sonowa/
v. Union of India and Anr.. [2005] 5 SCC 665. This Court in para 75 of the
report has observed as follows:

F "Like the power to refuse admission this is regarded as an incident
of the State's territorial sovereignty. International law does not prohibit
the expulsion en masse of aliens. (p. 351 ). Reference has also been
made to Article 13 of the International Covenant of 1966 on Civil
and Political Rights which provides that an alien lawfully in the
G territory of a State party to the Covenant may be expelled only pursuant
to a decision reached by law, and except where compelling reasons
of national security otherwise require, is to be allowed to submit the
reasons against his expulsion and to have his case reviewed by and
to be represented for the purpose before the compt:tent authority. It
is important to note that this Covenant of 1966 would apply provided
H an alien is lawfully in India, namely, with valid passport, visa, etc.
. 'I

HASAN ALI RAIHANY v. U.0.1 [B.P. SINGH, J.] 1161

and not to those who have entered illegally or unlawfully." A
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly,
having regard to the fact that the petitioner has entered this country legally
upon the Single Entry Permit issued to him, it is only fair that the competent
authority must inform him the reasons for his deportation. If such a decision
is taken, the petitioner must be given an opportunity to submit his B
representation against his proposed expulsion. The competent authority may
thereafter consider his representation and pass appropriate order. As observed
by this Court, this procedure may be departed from for compelling reasons
of national security etc. In the instant case, we have not so far noticed any
fact which may provide a compelling reason for the State not to observe this C
procedure.

We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition with the directions to the
competent authority, who we are told is the Deputy Commissioner of Police
and FRRO, Mumbai, to communicate to the petitioner the reasons why he is
sought to be deported from this country. The reasons disclosed must be D
sufficient to enable the petitioner to make an effective representation, if he
wishes to do so. The petitioner shall be given two weeks' time to make a
representation which shall be considered by the competent authority as soon
as possible. Any order passed shall be communicated to the petitioner
forthwith.
E
We further direct that the petitioner shall continue to report at the Kurla
Police Station every day. It is stated by learned counsel appearing on his
behalf that the present residential address of the petitioner is the following:
Hasan Ali Raihany,
Deeraj Apartments, F
'C' Wing, Flat No. 303,
Shastri Nagar,
Santacruz (West),
Mumbai. G

If there is any change of address, the petitioner will inform the Kurla Police
Station of the said change. He shall continue to report to the Police Station ·
till such time as the competent authority passes appropriate order as directed.

In case an adverse order is passed against the petitioner, it shall not be H
1162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) 2 S.C.R.

A given effect for a period of seven days from the date of service of that order
'(
on the petitioner so that he may seek appropriate legal remedy, if so advised.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Cr!. MP No. 209812006 in and S.L.P. (Cr!.) No .... ..12006:
B
Permission to file S.L.P. is granted.

ln view of the disposal of Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 17/2006, the special
leave petition has become infructuous and the same is dismissed as such.

C R.P. Writ Petition disposed of,
Special Leave Petition dismissed.