The Karnataka High Court has barred foreign nationals from executing Special Powers of Attorney (SPA) to file petitions under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution before Indian courts.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna on a Writ Petition filed by Sagad Kareem Ismael, an Iraqi national, who sought relief through his SPA holder for the consideration of his medical visa application and entry into India.

The Court said, "The power of attorney is admittedly executed invoking the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882. The Act nowhere permits a foreign national to sit somewhere in the globe, execute a power of attorney invoking the Act and seek to get entertainment of a petition or a case before any courts in India. The petitioner is wanting to do what the Act does not permit him to do.” It further emphasized that such SPAs executed by foreign nationals are invalid under Indian law.

Ismael, represented through his SPA holder, Muntandher Ahmed, argued that his inability to travel to India necessitated filing the petition remotely. Ismael’s plea sought the court’s intervention to direct the Ministry of External Affairs to grant him a medical visa based on his application from February 2024, citing urgent medical treatment advised by doctors at Aster CMI Hospital.

The Union of India opposed Ismael's plea, highlighting his past violations. Ismael first arrived in India in 2012 on a student visa to pursue a B-Pharma course in Bangalore. After overstaying by 11 months beyond his visa tenure, he left in 2017. Subsequently, his name was blacklisted until May 2019 due to the overstay.

On scrutiny of records, the Court noted that despite being blacklisted, Ismael managed to secure a medical attendant visa during the COVID-19 pandemic and entered India in December 2019. He departed in December 2021, following the issuance of an exit permit, during which authorities noted attempts to tamper with visa stickers and conceal his blacklisted status.

Regarding the alteration of his name from Sajjad Kareem Ismael to Sagad Kareem Ismael in his new passport, the Court criticized the suppression of this information and the presentation of misleading facts by Ismael.

The Court remarked, “All these maze of falsities that are projected by the Union of India and suppression of these materials by the petitioner would undoubtedly lead to dismissal of the petition with imposition of exemplary costs.”

"Since the petitioner is represented by another person who would not be aware of these factors, this Court is holding its hands on imposition of exemplary costs. The petitioner has projected a person who is a bona fide patient and wants to enter India somehow or the other," the Court said.

The Court opined that Ismael's projection is pseudo. "The petitioner’s projection is not for the first time, but it is for the third time. Lesion in the brain appears to have increased every time or even the reason for illness. Such power of attorneys which are executed by foreign nationals invoking the Act cannot be recognized, and is sans countenance. Finding no merit in the petition, the petition stands rejected," the Court said.

The Court concluded that Ismael's actions violated visa regulations, and his attempts to seek relief through an SPA were not permissible under law. It also affirmed that no relief could be granted to him due to his history of overstaying and attempts to manipulate visa norms.

The Single-Judge Bench also cautioned the Foreigners’ Regional Registration Office (FRRO) to meticulously scrutinize future visa applications from individuals with similar backgrounds, stressing the need for stringent evaluation to safeguard against misuse.

"...the Foreign Regional Registration Officer of FRRO should cautiously deal with such applications as the petitioner has been granted medical Visa not once but twice when he has overstayed for more than two years and should not also blindly look into an opinion from the hospital and grant such Visas as bona fides of the petitioner or the persons like the petitioners are always a suspect," the Court said.

Cause Title: Sri Sagad Kareem Ismael v. Union of India & Others [Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC:16484]

Appearance:-

Petitoner: Advocate Appu Kumar

Respondent: Deputy Solicitor General of India, H.Shanthi Bhushan

Click here to read/download the Order



Justice M NagaprasannaKarnataka High Court

Sukriti Mishra