The Supreme Court criticised the surge of foreigners overstaying illegally in India, remarking the country has become a “haven for all kinds of people.” The bench dismissed pleas by an Israeli and a Sudanese national as “frivolous” and “publicity interest.”
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday strongly criticised the growing number of foreign nationals who are living in India without valid visas or permits. The court said that India appeared to have turned into a “haven for all kinds of people.”
These remarks came while hearing a plea filed by Israeli citizen Dror Shlomo Goldstein, who has been residing in Goa and had approached the court to stop the deportation of his two minor daughters to Russia.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi refused to accept Goldstein’s petition, calling it both “publicity interest” and “frivolous.”
The judges raised doubts about how the Israeli national, who claimed to be the father of the two girls, was managing his livelihood in India.
The bench observed,
“This country has become a haven for all kinds of people. Anybody comes and stays here endlessly.”
The judges directly questioned him, saying,
“Why are you in India despite being Israeli? What is your source of livelihood?”
Goldstein’s lawyer, Deepak Prakash, asked for time to confirm whether the children had already been deported and also to serve a copy of the petition to the Union Government.
But the court refused to adjourn the case and instead allowed the petitioner to withdraw his plea. The order stated,
“We find this special leave petition totally frivolous. Apparently, the petitioner approached the high court and this court only for publicity.”
This case goes back to July, when Nina Kutina, a 40-year-old Russian woman, and her two daughters aged six and five, were discovered living in a cave inside a Karnataka forest.
They were found without valid travel or residence documents. Kutina and her daughters were then sent to a foreigners’ detention centre, and the Karnataka High Court later directed the Union Government to issue travel papers for their return to Russia.
Eventually, they were flown back to Russia on 28 September, along with Kutina’s minor son, who was traced in Goa.
Goldstein, who describes himself as a businessman living in Goa, had earlier approached the high court asking to stop the deportation and seeking custody of the two girls. He argued that he had supported their welfare.
But the court dismissed his plea, pointing out that despite his claims, the Russian woman and her daughters were “inexplicably found living in an isolated cave,” and that he could not properly explain how this situation came about.
On the same day, the Supreme Court also heard a separate case involving Yousif Haroun Yagoub Mohamed, a Sudanese national who requested protection from action over overstaying in India.
His lawyer, senior advocate S. Muralidhar, told the court that Mohamed held a refugee card issued by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and had already applied for asylum in Australia.
The bench, however, made it clear that India does not accept UNHCR refugee cards since the country is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol.
The judges remarked,
“You know the MHA does not acknowledge the refugee card… They have opened a showroom here and are issuing cards there.”
The court suggested that the petitioner should pursue his asylum request in Australia instead.
The bench also gave a word of caution, saying that courts must act carefully in such matters.
The judges said,
“Lakhs and lakhs are sitting here, overstaying.”
With that, the court dismissed Mohamed’s plea as well.
These observations of the Supreme Court come at a time when the Union Government has increased its focus on identifying and removing foreign nationals who are living illegally in India.
Goa, Karnataka, and Delhi have particularly seen a large number of such cases, where foreigners are overstaying for years without proper documents.
India does not have a separate refugee law and deals with these matters under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Passport (Entry into India) Rules, 1950.
Earlier this year, in May, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) started a nationwide drive to track and deport illegal immigrants. This move itself is currently being challenged before the Supreme Court.
Case Title:
DROR SHLOMO GOLDSTEIN Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.,
SLP(C) No. 28198/2025
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Illegal Foreigners in India
