Foreigners can’t insist on visa renewal, says Karnataka HC: ‘Not necessary for state to give explanation’

The two appellants, who are Nigerian nationals, had challenged a 2025 Karnataka High Court order that rejected their pleas seeking to be released from a foreigners’ detention centre and to extend their student visas.

3 min readBengaluruUpdated: Jan 30, 2026 01:49 PM IST

The Karnataka High Court made it clear that it was not necessary for the Foreigners Regional Registration Office to conduct a detailed enquiry to prove that appellants were engaging in unlawful activity before initiating action to expel them from India. (File photo)

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that a foreign national has no legal right to insist on the issuance or renewal of an Indian visa, and it is not necessary for the Union government to provide any explanation while cancelling the visa issued to a foreigner.

A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Poonacha, in an order passed on Thursday, said, “The rights under Article 19(1)(d) and 19(1)(e) of the Constitution of India, which are the right to move freely throughout India and the right to reside and settle in any part of the country, are available only to citizens of India and not to foreigners.”

Emphasising that a foreigner has no right to insist on a visa or its renewal. The court held, “The right to decline a grant or extension of a visa is clearly an unfettered sovereign right, and it is not necessary for the State to provide any explanation for denying a visa.”

Also Read | Defined registration, exemption for some minority religious groups: What’s in the new Foreigners Act?

The appellants, Obinna Jeremiah Okafor and John Adekwagh Vandefan, both Nigerian nationals, had challenged a single-judge bench order dated August 14, 2025, which had rejected their petitions seeking a direction to be released from a centre for foreigners’ detention and to extend their student visas.

‘Principles of natural justice not followed’

Advocate Remmy C Igwe, appearing for the appellants, submitted that the action by the authorities in passing a movement restriction order in February 2024 and sending them to the detention centre even before their visa had expired was violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, principles of natural justice were not followed before cancelling their visa.

Deputy Solicitor General Shanthi Bhushan H had opposed the appeal, contending that the central government had an absolute and unfettered discretion to expel foreigners from India.

The bench noted that the allegations raised by the authorities to cancel the visa – drug peddling, impersonating by holding a passport of a different person, and one of the appellants being admitted to a college in Tamil Nadu but found staying in Bengaluru – only raised a doubt on whether the appellants are bonafide students, but did not establish otherwise.

Story continues below this ad

The court made it clear that it was not necessary for the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) to conduct a detailed enquiry to prove that the appellants were engaging in unlawful activity before initiating action to expel them from India.

The court accepted the argument that authorities were required to inform the Nigerian nationals the reasons for the cancellation of their visa, and granted them an opportunity to submit a representation to it before passing the visa cancellation order. However, the court did not examine the issue in detail as the visas of the appellants would have expired anyway due to the efflux of time.

Dismissing the appeal, the bench held, “We are unable to accept that the appellants have any right to secure a visa, or an extension thereof, or to continue residing in the country after their visas have been cancelled.”