New Delhi: Accused of “pro-Pakistan propaganda” by the Indian Consulate in New York, Khalid Jahangir Qazi, an octogenarian Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cardholder, has for now been denied travel permission to attend a family wedding in Srinagar.
Denying him interim relief, the Delhi High Court noted that permission to let him travel would amount to granting him final relief, which should only be allowed in “exceptionally strong” cases. The court also framed and answered five pointed questions on the complex interplay between the Citizenship Act, 1955 and the Foreigners Act, 1946.
These questions, the bench said, required “careful consideration”, and will be answered in the full and final hearing, scheduled for late August 2026.
A medical practitioner based in the United States who was born and raised in Kashmir, his legal trouble began in June 2022 when the Indian Consulate in New York issued a show-cause notice regarding his alleged involvement in “anti-India activities”.
By May 2023, the Indian government cancelled his OCI card, citing “pro-Pakistan propaganda inimical to sovereignty, integrity & security of India”.
Further complicating his status, the Indian government issued a blacklisting order under the Foreigners Act on the grounds of “pro-Kashmiri separatist activities & anti-India propaganda”. While a single judge bench had set these orders aside in November 2024 citing procedural flaws, noting the lack of a fair hearing, the judge had also directed the government to issue a fresh notice to Qazi. Both Qazi and the Indian government subsequently challenged that judgment, leading to the current cross-appeals.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, on a Supreme Court directive to decide on Qazi’s interim travel prayer within a week, noted that interim relief having the effect of granting final relief should only be allowed in ‘exceptionally strong’ cases. In this instance, the bench found that the complex interplay between the Citizenship Act and the Foreigners Act required a full final hearing, which was scheduled for late August 2026.
On 11 August 2026, the division bench noted that while the single-judge bench had previously set aside the blacklisting, the same judge had also earlier rejected a travel request from Qazi after perusing sensitive material provided by the government in a “sealed cover”.
Also Read: Delhi HC reserves order on Swedish Hindu OCI card holder’s challenge to marriage registration rule
‘Midway rights’ v. ‘National security’
During the hearings, Qazi’s counsel argued that OCI cardholders possess “midway rights” that distinguish them from ordinary foreigners, granting them statutory privileges that cannot be bypassed through arbitrary blacklisting. They emphasized Qazi’s advanced age and his desire to visit siblings in Kashmir, arguing that the “balance of convenience” favored his visit. Qazi even offered an undertaking to refrain from any political or objectionable activities during his stay.
Conversely, the government contended that an OCI cardholder remains a “foreigner” under the Foreigners Act, arguing that the power to blacklist is a standalone sovereign function exercised for national security, peace, and public order. They further asserted that the material forming the basis of the blacklist was sensitive intelligence that could not be disclosed without compromising national interests.
5 important questions framed by HC
While the court noted that the five questions it framed must be adjudicated finally before granting any permanent relief, it provided a “prima facie” assessment to decide Qazi’s request for interim travel permission.
The first question concerned the interplay between Citizenship Act, 1955 and Foreigners Act, 1946 and whether provisions of one enactment would prevail over the other.
Second, whether the Citizenship Act, by conferring rights and privileges on OCI cardholders and providing for cancellation only after a hearing, constitutes a special statutory right, and to what extent the Foreigners Act applies to such cardholders.
Third, whether an OCI cardholder, who falls under the definition of a foreigner (not being a citizen of India), is subject to the powers conferred by section 3 of the Foreigners Act and section 7 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025.
Fourth, whether the procedural safeguards under Section 7D of the Citizenship Act (such as the right to a hearing) are applicable to actions taken against an OCI cardholder under the Foreigners Act.
Fifth, if a hearing is required, what is its scope. Specifically, the court asked if the government was required to disclose sensitive material to the cardholder if that material is withheld in the interest of national security, sovereignty, or public interest.
While the court reserved final judgment on these points for the hearing scheduled for late August 2026, it provided the following preliminary answers for the purpose of denying interim relief.
The bench was of the prima facie view that the Citizenship Act and the Foreigners Act ‘operate in distinct spheres’ with separate procedures and consequences. The safeguards found in Section 7D of the Citizenship Act ‘cannot be automatically imported’ into proceedings initiated under the Foreigners Act.
Regarding the disclosure of material (fifth question), the court noted that assessments of national security are primarily within the “executive domain”. It decided not to pursue the sensitive “sealed cover” material at this interim stage, as the scope of its validity and disclosure would only be relevant during the final adjudication.
Court’s ultimate decision on interim relief
The court in its 30-page order concluded that because these complex legal questions remain unresolved, the ‘balance of convenience’ lies with the State, which is entrusted with safeguarding national security and public interest. Despite a previous ruling that had set aside his blacklisting, the division Bench ruled that granting such a request at this stage would prematurely overlap with the final relief sought in pending appeals.
Ruling that Qazi had failed to establish a sufficiently strong “prima facie” case to override the government’s security concerns at this interim stage, the court noted that Qazi could participate in the wedding festivities virtually, suggesting that no “irreparable harm” would be caused by denying him physical entry while the legal issues remain under adjudication.
(Edited by Archishman Ganguly)
Also Read: Who is Amrit Wilson, 85-yr-old author whose OCI card was revoked over ‘anti-India propaganda’