Do ends justify the means? Analyzing the Calcutta HC’s judgment quashing the Leave India Notice issued to a Polish Student


Yesterday, the Calcutta High Court passed a significant verdict wherein it quashed a Leave India Notice issued by the Foreigners’ Regional Registration Office, Kolkata to a Polish national, studying in India. The Polish citizen was served the Notice for allegedly violating his visa conditions as he had participated in political rallies against the recent Citizenship Amendment Act. The Polish national had challenged the said notice before the Hon’ble High Court primarily on the grounds that the notice is devoid of reasons and that he was not granted a proper hearing.

While the verdict is laudable for its end result i.e. quashing the Notice, some of the means adopted by the Court to reach that conclusion seem questionable. In the present post, I shall elaborate on this observation, by highlighting the key takeaways of the judgment, along with discussing its problematic findings. I shall first provide a brief overview of the decision including the arguments raised by both the parties and the findings of the Court on the same. Thereafter, I shall analyse the judgment in detail.

Before I discuss the judgment, the concepts central to the discussion are briefly explained below.

  • Visa Conditions for a Student Visa in India-
    Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 empowers the Central Government to make orders prohibiting, regulating or restricting the entry of foreign nationals in India. The Section also allows the Central Government to lay down the conditions, which a foreign national is bound to abide by during her/his stay in India, in other words the conditions governing her/his visa.

    As per the Central Government orders issued under the Section, a foreign national is to strictly adhere to the purpose of her/his visit. For instance, a foreign national on a tourist visa is allowed to indulge only in recreation, sight-seeing, casual visit to meet friends or relatives etc; and no other purpose/ activity. Similarly, a foreign national on a student visa is allowed to indulge only in pursuing on-campus studies and no other activity [Clause 10].

  • Leave India Notice-
    In case, a foreign national violates the visa conditions, the respective Foreign Regional Registration Office (“FRRO”) is empowered to issue a Leave India Notice to her/him and subsequently cancel the Indian Visa. In such cases, the FRRO is required to first issue a Notice to the concerned foreign national along with the reasons and seek her/his reply to the same. After considering the Reply, the FRRO may either cancel the Visa or revoke the notice. [The concepts have been explained elaborately in a previous post.]

A. Overview of the Judgment:

Kamil Siedczynski i.e. the Petitioner was a Polish national pursuing a post-graduate programme in Comparative Literature at Jadhavpur University in India, on a Student Visa valid till 31 August 2020. The Petitioner was an excellent student with stellar credentials. In December 2019, the Petitioner had participated in a political rally organized against the recent Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 passed by the Parliament. Subsequently, on 14 February 2020, the Petitioner was served with a Leave India Notice (“LIN”) on the grounds that he participated in a political activity and hence flouted his visa conditions. The Petitioner challenged the said LIN before the Calcutta High Court.

The Petitioner challenged the LIN on two primary grounds i.e. (a) the LIN provided no reasons and (b) he was not accorded a hearing before issuance of the LIN. The government defended the LIN stating that they are not required to provide any reasons or a prior hearing to the concerned foreign national prior to making the order of expulsion. It further stated that the LIN was issued based on a confidential field report, according to which the Petitioner had engaged in anti-government demonstrations, thereby violating his visa conditions.

The Court rejected the contentions of the government and held that from the material before it no valid ground for expulsion of the Petitioner was made out. The Court also held that the LIN had violated the principle of audi altarem partem i.e. hear the other side, as the Petitioner was not heard before the notice was issued.

B. Takeaways from the Judgment:

In addition to the above discussed findings, the Court made certain observations that shall be pertinent for similar cases in future.

i. Reading in the requirement of Prior-Hearing in orders under Section 3-
As per the settled practice, a foreign national is accorded a hearing only after a LIN has been issued to him. Based on her/his response, a final order cancelling the visa is issued. This practice has gained judicial recognition as well. In the present case, the Court has modified this approach and held that the foreign national has to be accorded a fair hearing even before the LIN is issued. In other words, the Court has made hearing mandatory pre-notice as against post-notice.

ii. Expansive and liberal interpretation of visa conditions –
As discussed before, a foreign national on a student visa can only indulge in pursuing on-campus activities related to his studies. The Courts in the past have shown deference to the government’s decision to expel a foreigner as it is believed that the government has an absolute and unfettered discretion to expel a foreign national from India. The Courts have only intervened wherein the due procedure was not followed.

However, in the present case the Court has interfered with this discretion and gone into the correctness of the visa conditions. It has held that the Petitioner’s visa could only be negated if he had committed any specific offence having a penal consequence. It should be noted that in effect, the Court has restricted the revocation of student visas to instances where the foreign national commits an offence, as against the erstwhile requirement of indulging in any non-campus activity or activities not related to studies.

The Court has relied on Article 21 of the Constitution i.e. the Right to Life and Liberty to reach this conclusion. It has held that a foreign national has a protected right to a healthy human existence. Such an interpretation is a welcome step, as it expands the ambit of the rights available to foreign nationals in India.

C. The Problematic Areas:

It should be noted that High Courts are bound to follow the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Any decision that contravenes this principle is per incuriam (bad in law). In my opinion, in the present case the Hon’ble Court could have quashed the LIN solely on the ground of lack of bonafide reasons behind it. However, the Court went ahead and developed novel arguments/interpretations to quash the LIN and in doing so flouted several decisions it was bound to follow.

i. Reading the Right to Protest under Article 19 of the Constitution:
It is a settled position of law that rights guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India are available to citizens only and not foreign nationals. One such right is the right to freedom of speech and expression, guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). The Courts have held that all forms of speech and expressions are protected under this Article, which even includes expression of protests against the government i.e. the Right to Protest.

Therefore, if we go by the settled jurisprudence the ‘Right to Protest’ or ‘Freedom of Speech and Expression’ is not available to a foreign national in India. Interestingly, the Court in the present case granted the Right to Protest/attend political rallies to the foreign national, by reading the same into Article 21 as against Article 19.

The Court held,

“The mere activity of participation in a political rally is included within the right to life and personal liberty and freedom of speech and expression, particularly in respect of a student with brilliant academic career, whose consciousness is above the ordinary and is required to be cultured …
Political activity itself, in the absence of any specific allegation that the petitioner was actively involved with any political party which is banned in India, is a part of the bunch of rights which come along with the right to life and personal liberty. The expression of one’s free will through any mode and participation and interaction with Indians, of any caste, creed and colour, having whatever socio‐political and economic background, is a part of a healthy life and has to be read into the wide ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution.”

The Court reads the ‘Right to Political Activity’ into Article 21 by stating that expression of free will and participation and interaction with others is part of a healthy life and hence, protected by the Right to Life and Liberty. This approach is problematic as the Court is using Article 21 to grant a foreign national the rights available under Article 19, which are available only to Indian citizens. This arguably is a classic case of what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly too.

ii. Taking policy decision and trespassing into government’s domain –
As discussed before, the discretion to lay down the conditions for the entry of a foreigner in India vests with the central government. In furtherance thereof, the central government has framed the visa conditions which state that a foreign national on a student visa has to engage only in campus activity related to his studies. The Court in the present judgment has taken upon itself to rewrite the visa conditions and prohibited only those acts which are an offence in law and carry penal consequences.

The Court held that,

“83. In the present case, no reasons were attributed in the order of expulsion. Even the grounds disclosed in the Confidential Report, filed by the respondents, do not carry any suggestion as to the petitioner being involved in any illegal activity and/or having committed any offence under Indian law. In the absence of any specific offence having been alleged against the petitioner, having a penal consequence, the valid visa of the petitioner could not be negated by his expulsion from India.”

By rewriting the visa condition, the Court has arguably taken a policy decision and hence, trespassed over the domain of the central government.

Concluding Remarks:

In my opinion, the Court has given the Petitioner much more than he asked for. While the petition asked for quashing the LIN for violation of principles of natural justice, the Court went ahead and granted much more. This generosity may result in a possible challenge to the judgment before the Supreme Court, for its interpretation of Article 19 & 21 and for taking a policy decision itself.

It should be noted that the Petitioner’s stellar academic credentials played a significant role in the Court’s final verdict. The Court remarked that,

Moreover, in view of the petitioner’s knowledge in political situations and socio‐cultural issues of South Asia, it would be an unreasonable restriction on the petitioner to restrain him even from participating in political rallies, unless the same amounts to sedition or any other offence envisaged in Indian law.”

In my opinion, the said observations of the Court make the decision very fact specific thereby making it difficult to cull out general principles of law which may be followed by Courts in future.

7 thoughts on “Do ends justify the means? Analyzing the Calcutta HC’s judgment quashing the Leave India Notice issued to a Polish Student

Add yours

  1. So as far as I understand, the Court stated that though Article 19 only applies to citizens, it does not restrict the application of Article 21 to non-citizens living in India. Since Article 21 has been interpreted in such a broad manner (and it is ever-expanding) to include the right to partake in political activity, non-citizens living in India would get such rights regardless of Article 19. My concern with the judgment, therefore, is that such an ever-expanding interpretation of Article 21 renders Article 19 (or at least most of it) superfluous. If that is the case, then the following question must be asked: whether the drafters of the Constitution envisaged Article 21 to be interpreted in such a manner, i.e. in a way wherein parts of Article 19 are useless.


    1. Hi Paras! I am in agreement with you. Restricting Article 19 only to citizens was a conscious decision of the Constituent Assembly, which is why the when Court interprets those rights under Article 21, it is going against the intent of the Assembly. Further, as you said it renders Article 19 useless.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Sir, its such a delight to read your blogs. Your writings gives an in-depth understanding of the topic and open the horizons of mind. The way you write makes it simple for every Natural Legal Person.


  3. Hi Swapnil. Great article!
    I had another angle to critique this judgment, to which I wanted your opinion. The Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills had specifically stated that when where a law has been held to be unconstitutional upon violation of a fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens, the law shall, irrespective of its unconstitutionality, remain operative so far as it affects persons, entities and denominations who are non-citizens. Does the act of the Calcutta High Court, of extrapolating rights guaranteed under Article 19 into the scope of Article 21 – which is available to all persons (and not merely citizens) – somewhere bypass the precedent set by the SC in Ambica Mills or weakens the precedent’s value? Further, if rights guaranteed under Article 19 are extrapolated into the ambit of Article 21 – and the same is upheld by the SC in a future decision – will it not open floodgates for arguments being advanced in courts to constitutionally invalidate laws applicable to non-citizens primarily because of the violation of rights guaranteed exclusively to citizens are being read into the ambit of Article 21?


    1. Hi Ashwin,
      Thank you for reading the article. In my opinion, the High Court decision will definitely be challenged for ignoring settled precedents on the interpretation of Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution. A High Court has no power to weaken or dilute a Supreme Court precedent and neither can it bypass it (unless it holds that the case does not apply to the facts). I highly doubt that the SC will uphold the principles laid down in the Calcutta HC decision, as doing so would render Article 19 irrelevant. Non-citizens would start taking a recourse to Article 21 for claiming rights and protections which are only available to the citizens, for instance the rights under Article 19.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Website Powered by

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: