Early Times Report
JAMMU, Aug 1: In a significant development, the Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal has disposed of two Letters Patent Appeals (filed by the Union of India against a previous order directing the return of Rakshanda Rashid, a Pakistani national, to India.
This order has been passed by the Division Bench after hearing SGI Tushar Mehta with DSGI Vishal Sharma for the UOI and Sr. AAG Monika Kohli for UT.
The case gained attention after the Writ Court directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to bring back Ms. Rashid, who had been deported to Pakistan earlier this year. She originally entered India in 1990 on a visitor visa and remained in the country on a long-term visa (LTV), which was renewed annually. During her stay, she married an Indian citizen and lived in Jammu for several years.
However, after the April 2025 terror incident in Pahalgam, the Indian government revoked several valid visas under Section 3(1) of the Foreigners Act, 1946. Ms. Rashid's visa was among those canceled, and she was issued a Leave India Notice. Subsequently, she was escorted out of India through the Attari-Wagah border on April 29, 2025.
Challenging her deportation, Ms. Rashid filed WP(C) No. 1072/2025, seeking relief. The Single Judge of the Writ Court initially granted interim relief and directed authorities to bring her back. The Union of India appealed against this order.
During the appeal proceedings, the Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta with DSGI Vishal Sharma, informed the court that the competent authority had taken an in-principle decision to issue a visitor visa to Ms. Rashid, allowing her to re-enter India. This would also enable her to pursue pending applications for Indian citizenship and a new long-term visa.
Counsel for Ms. Rashid accepted the proposed course of action, and both parties agreed to close the case on these terms.
The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal, recorded the mutual agreement and deemed the original writ petition as withdrawn. The impugned interim order was declared ineffective and void.
Importantly, the court clarified that this decision was based on the "peculiar facts and circumstances" of the case and would not serve as a legal precedent for future matters.
—(JNF) |
