Court affirms sovereign right of State to refuse entry on national security grounds; confidential material behind blacklisting need not be disclosed
In a significant ruling delivered on November 3, 2026, the Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Charnjit Singh Bains, a person of Indian origin holding a foreign passport and an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card, seeking permission to enter India. The Court upheld the decision of the Union of India to refuse him entry on grounds of national security and public interest, relying on his status as a registered child sex offender in the United States.
The petitioner arrived at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, on January 7, 2026, when he was served with an order under Paragraph 6 of the Foreigners Order, 1948, refusing him permission to land and directing him to leave India immediately. The petitioner challenged the order, arguing that it was non-speaking and did not disclose reasons, and further contended that his OCI registration had neither been cancelled nor suspended under Section 7D of the Citizenship Act, 1955.
During the proceedings, it emerged that the petitioner had been blacklisted due to being a registered child sex offender in the United States. The petitioner did not dispute the criminal proceedings initiated against him in the US, which culminated in a plea of no contest in 2022 and probation without custodial sentence but argued the offense did not involve a child or minor.
The Court observed that the refusal of entry into India is a sovereign function of the State, embedded in considerations of national security, foreign policy, and administrative discretion. It referred to Section 7 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, authorizing the Central Government to regulate the entry and presence of foreigners. The Court underscored that the existence of an OCI card does not confer an enforceable right to enter India.
Further, the Court upheld the decision not to disclose the confidential and classified material forming the basis of the blacklisting, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding the security and integrity of the country. Citing the Supreme Court's precedent in Hans Muller of Nurenburg vs Superintendent, the Court reiterated the absolute discretion vested in the Central Government under the Foreigners Act.
The Court concluded that given the information about the petitioner's involvement in a serious sexual offense abroad, the authorities were justified in preventing his entry. Exercising its extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the sovereign decision of the State.
The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the State's wide powers to regulate entry of foreigners, including OCI card holders, especially where national security and public interest are at stake.
Bottom Line:
Foreigners/immigration - Refusal of entry into India is a sovereign function of the State - Foreign national/OCI card holder cannot claim entry into India as a matter of right - Blacklisting on basis of information regarding involvement in serious sexual offence abroad upheld - Confidential material forming basis of blacklisting need not be disclosed where security and integrity concerns are involved.
Statutory provision(s):
Foreigners Order, 1948 Paragraph 6, Citizenship Act, 1955 Section 7D, Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 Section 7, Foreigners Act, 1946 Section 3, Constitution of India Article 226
Charnjit Singh Bains v. Union of India, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3011715
