The Delhi High Court upholds visa refusal to an Indian-origin US citizen who was denied entry over a sex-offender conviction in the United States, dismissing his writ for concealing an earlier petition and holding that visa issuance is a sovereign function.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition by a former Indian citizen, now a United States citizen, seeking a decision on his repeated Indian visa applications and an entry visa as the spouse of an Indian citizen, holding that the Court finds no ground to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in view of the material suppression of facts [Dhanraj Rajendra Patel and Another v. Union of India and Others].
Justice Amit Mahajan heard the matter and dismissed the petition on October 5, 2026. The Court heard Rajveer Singh for the petitioners and Rukhmini Bobde, Central Government Standing Counsel, for the Union of India.
The case
Petitioner No. 1, Dhanraj Rajendra Patel, was born an Indian citizen, later acquired United States citizenship and renounced his Indian citizenship. In December 2022 he obtained an e-visa, travelled to India, was denied entry at Delhi airport and was deported to Dubai. His e-visa was cancelled.
He thereafter applied repeatedly for an entry visa. According to the petition, the applications were returned and his representations to the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Office of the Director (Foreigners) drew no response. He sought a direction to decide the applications and an entry visa as the spouse of an Indian citizen, who is Petitioner No. 2.
What the Union argued
The Union contended that the petitioner had not disclosed that he had earlier challenged the same denial of entry before the Gujarat High Court, which dismissed that petition on January 6, 2023. It also argued that issuing a visa is a sovereign function and that a foreign national abroad has no enforceable right to one. The Gujarat High Court’s order recorded that entry was denied and the e-visa cancelled because the petitioner is a convicted sex offender in the United States.
What the Court said
On the non-disclosure, Justice Mahajan held:
“The filing and dismissal of the said petition were material facts ought to have been disclosed in the present writ petition. The failure to do so amounts to concealment of material facts.”
The Court held that once the grounds for denying entry and cancelling the e-visa had been affirmed by the Gujarat High Court, the same rationale applied to the respondents not granting a fresh visa. On the nature of the power, it observed:
“The issuance of a visa is a sovereign function of the State, embedded in considerations of national security, foreign policy and administrative discretion.”
Noting that the petitioner was “admittedly” convicted as a sex offender in the United States, the Court held that the respondents “are within their rights to prevent such people from setting foot on Indian soil”.
The direction
“Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, coupled with the material suppression of facts, this Court finds no ground to exercise its discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The present petition is accordingly dismissed.”
Why the order matters
The order reiterates that a foreign national outside India has no enforceable claim to a visa and that the grant or refusal of one rests in the sovereign discretion of the State. Marriage to an Indian citizen, on the Court’s reasoning, did not by itself displace that discretion.
It also underlines the duty of candour in writ jurisdiction: an earlier petition on the same cause of action, and its dismissal, must be disclosed, and failure to do so can by itself justify refusal of discretionary relief under Article 226. The Court’s observations on the conviction are recorded from the earlier Gujarat High Court order and the petitioner’s admission in this case.
Case Title: Dhanraj Rajendra Patel and Another v. Union of India and Others [W.P.(C) 4979/2026]
Bench: Justice Amit Mahajan, Delhi High Court
Date of Order: October 5, 2026
Appearances: Rajveer Singh (Advocate, through video conferencing) for the petitioners; Rukhmini Bobde (CGSC) with Vinayak Aren and Aishwarya Nigam (Advocates) for the Union of India