On June 11, the Indian Supreme Court refused to entertain a writ petition filed by a Pakistani Christian seeking Indian citizenship or long-term visa (LTV). The Court, while disposing of the petition, directed the petitioner to approach the Bombay High Court for relief.
The case was heard by a division bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan. During the hearing, the counsel for the petitioner informed the Court that the man's long-term visa was due to expire on June 20, and he had approached the Supreme Court due to his pending application for Indian citizenship.
“Why have you come here?” - Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra asked at the outset, pointing out the premature nature of the petition before the Supreme Court.
The petitioner had also challenged the cut-off date of December 31, 2014 mentioned in the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019. The Act grants citizenship to religious minorities from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan who enter India on or before this date. The petitioner, who entered India after the said date, was ineligible under the current CAA provisions and sought relief from this restriction.
However, the Supreme Court said that the proper legal course would be to first seek relief from the Bombay High Court.
“Go to the Bombay High Court, please, pray there first.” - Justice Manmohan remarked while refusing to admit the petition directly in the apex court.
Thereafter, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the High Court. The Supreme Court granted it.
“Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of the court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the Bombay High Court. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn.” - the court order said.
According to the petition, the applicant is a member of the Roman Catholic Christian community who is allegedly facing religious persecution in Pakistan. He claimed that he fled Pakistan under such circumstances and has been living in India since then. However, his passport expires in June 2025 and he is facing difficulties in renewing his visa, leaving him in a state of legal uncertainty.
Read also: Kapil Sibal raises concern over delay in action on impeachment motion against Justice Shekhar Yadav
Notably, the petitioner is also married to an Indian citizen, which he argued should be taken into account while deciding on his citizenship or visa status.
Case Details: JUDE MENDES Vs UNION OF INDIA|W.P.(C) No. 569/2025
