The Delhi high court has held that immigration officers are empowered to detain a person for further questioning and to subject them to additional security checks, even if they hold a valid visa and have travelled to the country on multiple occasions.
The order was passed by a bench of Justice Amit Mahajan while hearing a petition filed by an Indian citizen holding a valid German Business Schengen visa, who alleged that he was repeatedly subjected to additional scrutiny at the departure and arrival immigration counters at Delhi’s Indira Gandhi International Airport despite possessing valid travel documents.
“Pertinently, the Immigration officer is well within its authority to seek information as is necessary. In fact, Section 3 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 empowers the Immigration officer to require the traveller to furnish such information as may be necessary and appropriate,” the court said in an October 14 order released later.
The case
In the present case, the man’s earlier Schengen visa was annulled, and following fresh applications, he was subsequently granted three more visas.
However, after his earlier visa was annulled, he was subjected to additional verification at the airport’s immigration counters on several occasions. Although he was permitted to travel each time, he challenged the repeated scrutiny, contending that it was unwarranted given that he held a valid visa.
Centre’s lawyer submitted that following the annulment of the man’s earlier visa, the German Embassy had issued an alert directing that neither the man nor any other person could be permitted to travel to Germany using the annulled visa. The alert, the counsel said, remained valid until October 31, 2027.
She further submitted that, as a due diligence measure, immigration authorities verified the man’s existing visa with the local airline officer in view of the earlier annulment. The counsel added that no formal request to withdraw the alert had been received from the German Embassy. She said that although the man was questioned at the embassy’s behest, he was permitted to depart each time after examination by immigration authorities.
Petition dismissed
Taking note of the Centre’s submissions, the court dismissed the petition, observing that the mere fact that the petitioner was subjected to additional verification due to the earlier annulment of his visa, causing him some inconvenience, was not sufficient to warrant the court’s interference.
“It cannot be held that the authorities were arbitrarily exercising their powers. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has, in any manner, been prevented to travel abroad or that he has not been allowed to depart after his examination by the immigration authorities,” the court said.