The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a petition seeking directions for the consideration of a Long-Term Visa (LTV) application and extension of a residential permit, in a case arising from the suspension of visa services for Pakistani nationals.

The court stressed that decisions made in the interest of national security are not subject to judicial review and reaffirmed the Supreme Court’s position on the government's absolute discretion regarding the expulsion of foreigners.

The case involved a Pakistani national married to an Indian citizen, who had applied for an LTV before the Bureau of Immigration.

However, soon after, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued an order under Section 3(1) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, suspending visa services for Pakistani nationals, except for specific categories such as Medical, Diplomatic, and Official Visas.

As a result, the petitioner's visa was revoked, and the pending LTV application could not be processed, leading to the present petition.

The petitioner’s counsel urged the Court to direct authorities to consider the pending LTV application and to extend the residential permit periodically. It was argued that the petitioner’s case should not be adversely affected by the general suspension order, especially in light of the petitioner's marriage to an Indian citizen.

However, the Court firmly held that orders issued in view of serious national security concerns are immune from judicial scrutiny. Emphasizing the sensitivity of such matters, the Court stated that it could not interfere with policy decisions intended to protect national security.

Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Hans Muller of Nurenburg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail, Calcutta, the Court reiterated that the Foreigners Act vests the Central Government with "absolute and unfettered discretion" to expel foreigners, with no constitutional provision limiting this authority.

The Court further observed that it was not empowered to carve out exceptions to policy decisions made in the interest of national security.

In light of these findings, the Court expressed its unwillingness to entertain the petition. Upon a request by the petitioner’s counsel, the petition was allowed to be withdrawn and was accordingly dismissed. All pending applications were also disposed of.