Telangana HC allows Hyderabad man declared ‘Pakistani national’ to withdraw plea after producing Indian passport

Disposing of the case and refusing to interfere, a single-judge bench last month held that such visits were intended to ensure compliance with visa regulations and cannot be equated with coercive or punitive action without due process.

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

‘Could have easily produced the passport’

During the hearing Wednesday, when the petitioner’s counsel, S Sridhar, produced his client’s Indian passport, the respondent authority informed the bench, also comprising Justice G M Mohiuddin, that there was no information with the Union Ministry of Home Affairs regarding the passport issued to the petitioner.

“If he had a passport, why did he not show it to the police when they were making domiciliary visits? And even now, he can show it to them. So what is the great thing about pressing this (appeal)? If you show that passport to them and they are satisfied, the matter comes to an end. Everyday some new fact is unfolding. Yesterday, you showed a passport photocopy. Now they are saying there is no passport. You are showing a passport in a different name than what was mentioned in his mother’s passport. Do you expect us to enter into all that and make strictures, comments?” the bench asked orally.

When the Government Pleader for Home informed the court that the petitioner had himself applied for a long-term visa on July 5, 2025, after declaring himself a Pakistani national, Razvi’s counsel responded, stating that his client was forcefully compelled by the police to sign the application.

The bench then asked if such a “vital fact” was ever mentioned in the affidavit, the petitioner’s counsel had no satisfactory answers. Responding to a pointed query from the bench, the counsel said he would like to withdraw the writ appeal.

In its final order, the bench noted that Razvi’s counsel reiterated that his client is in possession of an Indian passport. “If that be so, the whole grievance of the petitioner relating to domiciliary visits in his house on expiry of long-term visa would be rendered futile as the petitioner could have easily produced the passport,” the bench stated.