High Court Dismisses Nigerian Students' Appeal Against Movement Restriction Order Under Foreigners Act - Visa Cancellation and Detention Upheld Despite Procedural Irregularities

Sub Category: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ appeal filed by two Nigerian students challenging their detention under movement restriction orders issued by Foreigners Regional Registration Office -- The appellants claimed to be bonafide students pursuing education in India and alleged violation of constitutional rights and natural justice principles in visa cancellation and detention -- The Court examined allegations of fake passport possession and drug dealing but found no substantiating material -- The Court held that procedural fairness issues regarding movement restriction order became moot after visa cancellation -- The Court noted that even without cancellation, the visas would have expired by their own terms -- The appellants' claims for visa extension and right to complete studies were rejected -- The Single Judge's order dismissing the writ petition was upheld

Headnote

The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru dismissed Writ Appeal filed by two Nigerian nationals challenging Movement Restriction Order dated 23.12.2024 -- The appellants contended violation of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and principles of natural justice in visa cancellation and movement restriction -- The Court held that procedural fairness regarding movement restriction order became irrelevant after visa cancellation -- The Court found no merit in appellants' claim for visa extension -- The Court observed that even if visas had not been cancelled, they would have expired by their own terms -- The appellants' contention about being prevented from completing studies was considered but found insufficient to invalidate the order -- The appeal was dismissed upholding the impugned order dated 14.08.2025 passed by Single Judge in WP.No.15380/2025

Issue of Consideration: The Issue of Consideration was whether the Movement Restriction Order dated 23.12.2024 passed under Section 3(2)(e) of Foreigners Act 1946 read with Section 11(2) of Foreigners Order 1948 violated Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and principles of natural justice

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the Writ Appeal and upheld the impugned order dated 14.08.2025 passed by Single Judge in WP.No.15380/2025 -- The Movement Restriction Order dated 23.12.2024 was sustained -- The appellants' claims for release from detention and visa extension were rejected

2026 LawText (KAR) (01) 10

Writ Appeal No. 1503 of 2025 (GM-PASS)

2026-01-27

Vibhu Bakhru, Chief Justice, C.M. Poonacha, Justice

WA No. 1503 of 2025

Sri Remmy C. Igwe for Appellants, Sri Shanthi Bhushan H. for Respondent-1, Sri K.S. Harish for Respondent-2

Obinna Jeremiah Okafor, John Adekwagh Vandefan

Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) Bureau of Immigration (BOI), State of Karnataka

Nature of Litigation: Writ Appeal challenging detention and movement restriction order under Foreigners Act

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought setting aside of Movement Restriction Order dated 23.12.2024 and release from detention

Filing Reason

Appellants claimed violation of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and principles of natural justice in visa cancellation and detention

Previous Decisions

Single Judge dismissed WP.No.15380/2025 on 14.08.2025, which appellants appealed against

Issues

Whether Movement Restriction Order dated 23.12.2024 violated Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India Whether principles of natural justice were violated in visa cancellation and movement restriction procedures Whether appellants had right to visa extension and completion of studies

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants contended violation of natural justice as no notice or copy of visa cancellation order was provided Appellants argued they were bonafide students prevented from completing studies Appellants denied allegations of fake passport possession and drug dealing Respondents alleged appellants possessed fake passport and were involved in drug dealing Respondents contended appellants violated visa conditions including registration requirements

Ratio Decidendi

Procedural fairness regarding movement restriction order becomes irrelevant after visa cancellation -- Mere procedural irregularities in movement restriction order do not invalidate the order if visas stand cancelled -- Appellants have no automatic right to visa extension -- Even if visas had not been cancelled, they would have expired by their own terms

Judgment Excerpts

The learned Single Judge observed that if the visas issued to the appellants were live and subsisting, the question of procedural fairness in issuing the movement restriction order dated 23.12.2024 under Article 14 of the Constitution of India would be relevant -- However, since the visas were cancelled, the question of procedural fairness is not relevant The learned Single Judge also found no merit in the appellants' contention that they had a right to an extension of their visas The appellants contend that the action taken by the respondent authorities violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India

Procedural History

Movement Restriction Order issued on 23.12.2024 -- Writ Petition WP.No.15380/2025 filed challenging the order -- Single Judge dismissed writ petition on 14.08.2025 -- Writ Appeal No. 1503 of 2025 filed challenging Single Judge's order -- Appeal heard and reserved for judgment -- Judgment pronounced on 27.01.2026

Related Judgement
High Court High Court Dismisses Nigerian Students' Appeal Against Movement Restriction Orde...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Murder Case, Upholds Life Imprisonment. Court...