No relief to ‘Karachi-born’ Hyderabad resident as Telangana HC says ensuring compliance with visa regulations not coercive

While Razvi asserted that he was born and brought up in Hyderabad, lived there all his life, and is married to an Indian citizen, the Government Pleader for the Home Department submitted that Razvi’s name was recorded in his mother, Gohar Fathima, ’s Pakistani passport as Imran Abid alias Imran Hussain. The pleader also said they arrived in India in February 1994, three years after Razvi’s birth in Karachi.

No conclusive statutory proof of citizenship

Noting that Razvi’s claim of Indian citizenship by birth is disputed, Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka held that he has not produced any conclusive statutory proof of citizenship under the Citizenship Act, 1955, such as a certificate of registration, naturalisation, or a valid Indian passport.

“The reliance placed by petitioner on Aadhaar card, Voter ID card, PAN card, driving licence and educational certificates cannot, by themselves, confer or establish citizenship, particularly when the statutory framework governing foreigners mandates determination of nationality based on passport, visa status, and orders passed by competent authorities under the Foreigners Act, 1946,” the court observed.

The court also rejected the plea of violation of principles of natural justice, holding that the actions of the respondents were part of an ongoing statutory verification and compliance process initiated following the government order of April 28, 2025, which mandated all Pakistani nationals holding LTVs and not holding an Indian citizenship to apply afresh for LTVs.

Noting that the Razvi’s mother’s status itself is the subject matter of a writ petition pending adjudication, the judge ruled that the petitioner, whose status is derivative and disputed, cannot seek a blanket declaration restraining the statutory authorities from performing their duties under the Foreigners Act, 1946, the Foreigners Order, 1946, and the Visa Manual, 2019.

The court also noted the “discrepancies” in the identity particulars of the petitioner and held that the relief sought, if granted, “would effectively preclude the respondents from enforcing statutory mandates.” The court disposed of the petition as it came to a “considered view that the petitioner has not made out any case.”