Bengaluru: A foreign national has no right to insist on the grant or renewal of a visa, nor is the state required to provide reasons for denying it, the Karnataka high court recently observed while dismissing a writ appeal filed by two Nigerian nationals.A division bench, comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Poonacha, dismissed the writ appeal filed by Obinna Jeremiah Okafor and John Adewagh Vandefan, who challenged the Aug 14, 2025 order of a single bench that dismissed their petition.
Okafor and Vandefan, along with Cyril Udoka Odigbo, filed a petition before the single bench challenging a movement restriction order issued by the authorities on Dec 23, 2024. They were sent to Aasare Foundation Trust, Laggere, Bengaluru. On Aug 14, 2025, the single bench dismissed their petition. Odigbo, who is alleged to be impersonating Cyril Udoka Odigbo, a Nigerian national and a BBA student of Rayat Bahra University, Mohali, did not join them in the appeal proceedings.Okafor claimed that he’s a BCom student at Sree Omkar College of Commerce and Management at Sathanur in Bengaluru. Vandefan submitted that he came to India on a student visa to study MSc, Computer Sciences, at Karpagam Academy of Higher Education at Coimbatore in Tamil Nadu, and is in the process of shifting to an institution in Bengaluru.The appellants contended that the action taken by the Foreigners Regional Registration Office violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. They argued that the movement restriction order passed under Section 3(2)(e) of the Foreigners Act-1946, read with Section 11(2) of the Foreigners Order-1948, was liable to be set aside as it was issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. They alleged that, although their visa was cancelled, they were not provided with a copy of the order cancelling it and that they did not receive any prior notice of the cancellation, which enabled them to present their defence to the proposed action.H Shanthi Bhushan, deputy solicitor general appearing for FRRO, Bengaluru, and KS Harish, govt advocate appearing for RT Nagar police, submitted that the central govt had an absolute and unfettered discretion to expel foreigners from India.Citing the Supreme Court decision in Louis De Raedt v Union of India, they added that Article 19 of the Constitution of India guaranteed only the rights of citizens, not those of foreigners.The division bench noted that the single bench dismissed the petition as the visas of the petitioners were cancelled and there was no point in going into the fairness of the issuance of the movement restriction order.The bench observed that although the appellants were accused of involvement in drug peddling, the allegation was not supported by any conclusive evidence. With respect to the alleged fake passport, the bench noted that no proof had been produced to establish that the passport was ever seized.Referring to the Immigration and Foreigners Act-2025, which repealed the Foreigners Act, the bench held that Sections 3 and 7 empower the central govt to issue an order directing the expulsion of any foreigner from India, and that such an order must be complied with by the foreigner concerned.It was well settled that the rights under Article 19(1)(d) and 19(1)(e) of the Constitution of India, which were the right to move freely throughout India and the right to reside and settle in any part of the country, were available only to citizens of India and not to foreigners, the bench pointed out.Considering the fact that the visas of the appellants expired with the passage of time, the division bench did not dwell on the validity of the movement restriction order. “We are unable to accept that the appellants have any right to secure a visa, or an extension thereof, or to continue residing in the country after their visas were cancelled. In view of the above, we do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned order,” the division bench observed while dismissing the writ appeal.
