Tablighi Jamaat congregation: SC asks MHA to clarify if separate visa cancellation orders issued for each case
Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium
Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only BenefitsTribune News Service
New Delhi, June 29
The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Centre to clarify if the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) issued separate orders for cancellation of visas of foreign nationals who took part in a Tablighi Jamaat congregation here in March.
A large number of foreign nationals from 35 countries were blacklisted for 10 years for their alleged involvement in Tablighi Jamaat activities.
A Bench headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar posted the petitions filed by foreign nationals challenging their blacklisting for further hearing on July 2 after the Centre said it hadn’t received a copy of their petition.
The Bench told Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta that if visas of these foreign nationals were cancelled, then the government should explain why they were still in India. But if their visas were not cancelled, then it’s a different situation, it added.
On behalf of the petitioners, senior advocate CU Singh pointed out that blacklisting note was a general order for more than 900 foreign nationals.
Noting that the MHA notification said the decision had to be taken on a case-to-case basis, the Bench sought to know if such orders were passed and served on the foreigners in question.
The Bench said its understanding was that in each case separate order needed to be passed for visa cancellation.
Four petitions have been filed by 34 individuals, including a Thai national who is seven months pregnant, challenging the Centre’s orders of April 2 and June 4 by which over 2,500 foreign nationals, who are currently in India, were blacklisted.
The Government’s decision violated the principle of natural justice by blacklisting the foreigners present in India without first granting an opportunity of being heard and resultantly depriving them of their right of locomotion and travelling back to the country of their citizenship, one of the petitioners alleged.