Jammu, Aug 2: The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) after much deliberations and considering the peculiarity of facts and unusual factual position in the matter, has decided to grant a visitor’s visa to Rakshanda Rashid, deported to Pakistan from Jammu after the Pahalgam terror attack.
This has been informed by the Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta to the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh in case of two appeals filed against a common order dated June 6, 2025, whereby the writ court directed the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, to bring the petitioner (Rakshanda Rashid) who was deported to Pakistan, back to India, within a period of ten days from the date of the order (June 6, 2025).
Following this submission by the Solicitor General of India, the Division bench of High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, comprising the Chief Justice Arun Palli and the Justice Rajnesh Oswal, hearing the case at Jammu court through virtual mode, disposed of both the appeals.
The court, however, has hastened to clarify that in principle, the decision taken by the authorities (MHA) centred upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, should not constitute a precedent in any manner.
As per facts of the case, Rakshanda Rashid, daughter of Mohd Rashid resident of H No22 Namuddin Road F6-I Islamabad, is a Pakistani national. Initially, she entered India on February 10, 1990 via Attari rail Amritsar on visitor-visa for 14 days to visit Jammu city.
But she continued to stay owing to a long-term visa (LTV) granted by the authorities on a year-to-year basis. And during her stay, she revealed that she had married an Indian national. It wasn’t disputed either that respondent’s (Rakshanda’s) LTV was valid up to January 13, 2025, and she applied for extension on January 4, 2025.“But no such extension was ever approved or accorded,” it was stated.
Following the Pahalgam terror incident, the competent authority in exercise of power under Section 3(1) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, issued an order dated April 25, 2025 thereby revoking all existing valid visas with immediate effect subject, however, to certain exceptions.
On April 28, 2025, Rakshanda Rashid was served with a Leave India Notice under Section 3(1) 7(1) & 2(c) of the Immigration and Foreigners Act 2025, issued by the Criminal Investigation Department (Special Branch Jammu), to leave the Country by or before April 29, 2025.
Being aggrieved she approached J&K High Court vide WP(C) No 1072/2025. And by way of interim relief, she prayed for stay of operation of the impugned order dated April 28, 2025.
“The uncontroverted position on record is that pursuant to the Leave India Notice, she was issued an exit permit and was escorted to Attari Wagah Border, Amritsar, by the authorities. And whereupon she crossed over to Pakistan after availing the said exit permit on April 29, 2025 at 4.30 pm. However, the learned Single Judge vide an interim order directed the appellants to bring the deportee back to India,” the Division Bench observed.
“The said order (Single judge’s order) is being assailed in the appeals before the Division Bench on multiple grounds. We had heard learned Solicitor General of India, appearing for the appellants as also the senior counsel for the caveator and respondent on July 2, 2025 at length and while issuing notice, the operation of the impugned order dated June 6, 2025 was stayed,” the court said.
However, on July 22, 2025 when the matter was taken up, Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India, requested the Court to defer the proceedings to enable him, without prejudice to the rights or interests of the appellants to explore if the respondent could be helped in any manner or if it was still feasible to address her concerns, to intervene and discuss the matter with the competent authority. Accordingly, the appeals were posted for July 30, 2025.
“Today, Solicitor General of India, informed the Court that after much deliberations and considering the peculiarity of facts and unusual factual position obtaining in the matter, an in principle decision is taken by the authority to grant a visitor’s visa to the respondent. And thereafter, she may even, if so advised, pursue the two applications that are purportedly moved by her and pending with the respective authority as regards acquiring Indian citizenship as also the long term visa,” the Division Bench noted in its order on July 30, 2025.
In response, the counsel for the respondent, on instructions, submitted that she was fully agreeable to the course suggested by the Solicitor General of India. Thus, she submitted that the appeals be disposed of in terms of the stand set out on behalf of the appellants and the statement made before the court.
Accordingly, it was urged by the respondent writ petition [WP(C) No.1072/2025] filed by the respondent be also deemed to have been withdrawn. However, in the given circumstances, the appellants should be directed to expedite the process of granting a visitor’s visa to her.
Upon this, the Solicitor General of India submitted, “Once an in principle decision is taken by the competent authority, there is hardly a room for any doubt that post compliance of the requisite procedure and formalities, the authority would not process and accord a visitor’s visa to the respondent at the earliest.”
“In the wake of the positions sketched out and in terms of the statements made by counsel for the parties, the appeals are, accordingly, disposed of. The writ petition [WP(C) No.1072/2025] filed by the respondent is deemed to have been withdrawn. And as a natural consequence, the impugned order, interim in nature, loses its relevance and, thus, ceases to exist or operate,” the Division Bench held.
