Jammu & Kashmir High Court disposes of appeals following Centre’s assurance to grant fresh visa to Pakistani national

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court has disposed of two appeals concerning Pakistani national Rakshanda Rashid, following the Union Government’s assurance that she would be considered for the grant of a fresh visitor visa. This assurance came in the wake of her earlier deportation pursuant to a blanket visa revocation order issued after the Pahalgam terror incident.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal recorded the submission of Solicitor General of India, Mr. Tushar Mehta, who informed the Court that the competent authority had, in principle, decided to grant Ms. Rashid a fresh visitor visa. The Court emphasized that this decision was made in view of the “peculiar facts and circumstances” of the case and would not serve as a precedent.

Ms. Rashid, a resident of Islamabad, had initially entered India in 1990 on a visitor visa and subsequently resided in Jammu on a long-term visa (LTV), which was renewed annually. She married an Indian national and lived in India for decades. Her LTV was valid until January 13, 2025, and she had applied for renewal on January 4, 2025.

However, following the Pahalgam terror incident, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued a sweeping revocation of all valid visas—excluding specified exemptions—under Section 3(1) of the Foreigners Act, 1946. Consequently, Ms. Rashid was served a Leave India Notice on April 28, 2025, requiring her to exit the country by the next day. She was deported on April 29 via the Wagah-Attari border.

Challenging her deportation, Ms. Rashid approached the High Court, where a learned Single Judge, by an interim order dated June 6, 2025, directed the authorities to facilitate her return to India within ten days. This interim order became the subject of the present appeals.

On July 2, the Division Bench stayed the operation of the interim order. At a subsequent hearing on July 22, Solicitor General Mehta sought time to consider whether any relief could be extended to the respondent. When the matter was taken up again on July 30, Mr. Mehta informed the Court that the Union Government had taken an in-principle decision to grant Ms. Rashid a fresh visitor visa.

Counsel for Ms. Rashid confirmed her acceptance of the proposed course of action and stated that the original writ petition would be withdrawn. Accordingly, the Court noted that the interim order had become redundant, and the matter no longer required adjudication.

Commending the approach taken by the Union Government, the Bench reiterated that the relief granted was a one-time exception and “shall not constitute a precedent in any manner.”

The appeals were formally disposed of, and liberty was granted to the respondent to pursue her pending applications for Indian citizenship and long-term visa before the competent authorities.