Delhi High Court
Jonathan David Iverson Through ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 February, 2019
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6718/2018 & CM APPL. 25485/2018
JONATHAN DAVID IVERSON THROUGH HIS
AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MARGARET
ANNETTE IVERSON ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Sulabh Rewari, Ms Neha
Mathen, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Rajesh Gogna, CGSC with
Mr Upender Sai, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
ORDER
% 14.02.2019
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
1. The petitioner is a citizen of United States of America and has
filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the action of
respondents in denying the petitioner re-entry into India, despite the
petitioner holding a valid visa. The petitioner is married to an
American citizen and has five daughters aged between three to eleven
years, three of whom were born in India.
2. At the outset, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the visa issued to the petitioner has expired and,
therefore, the scope of the present petition is limited to the action of
the respondents in blacklisting the petitioner.
3. The petitioner was issued a long-term business visa on
31.05.2011. The petitioner came to India on the strength of the
aforesaid visa and commenced business in Bengaluru sometime in
July, 2011. Subsequently, he incorporated a company, named, Versys
Consultants and Services Private Limited (hereafter „Versys‟), which
is engaged in training and equipping entrepreneurs, to start and grow
small businesses to medium sized enterprises. It is stated that the
petitioner owns 50% of the issued capital of the said company. It is
stated that the petitioner used to visit India regularly for business since
2011. He decided to take full time employment in India and,
accordingly, applied for an employment visa which was granted on
22.10.2015. The petitioner‟s family also relocated to India.
4. The petitioner and his family members went to USA for a short
visit between 05.04.2018 and 19.06.2018. They boarded the return
flight to India on 18.06.2018, which landed in Bengaluru on
19.06.2018. While the petitioner‟s family (his wife and children) were
allowed to enter into India, the petitioner was stopped from doing so.
He was, thereafter, asked to board a flight to Singapore.
5. Aggrieved by denial of entry into India, the petitioner filed the
present petition impugning the said action of the respondents as a
wholly arbitrary and unreasonable.
6. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit indicating that
the petitioner was placed on a "blacklist 'B' category for indulging in
Missionary activities while being on Employment Visa". The reason
for blacklisting the petitioner as stated in blacklist circular issued by
the FRRO, reads as under:
"Foreigner and his family regularly visit a
worship centre viz. Bangalore International
Christian Fellowship (BICF) and are actively
involved in the activities of the above Church
while being on employment visa thus violating
rules and regulations."
7. The petitioner has filed an affidavit affirming that the petitioner
was never involved with Bengaluru International Christian Fellowship
(BICF) as alleged and he has not visited BICF in recent years. He has
affirmed that to his recollection, he had visited the said Church on two
or three occasions and that too, about five years ago. The petitioner
affirmed that he and his family have been regularly attending a Church
called New City Fellowship Church and have not been involved in any
missionary activity.
8. It is relevant to note that despite pointed queries by the court, no
material was produced on record to substantiate the allegation that the
petitioner has been engaged in any missionary activity.
9. As is apparent from the above, the FRRO had initiated the
proposal to blacklist the petitioner on the ground that enquiries had
revealed that the petitioner was involved in church work and
conducted special prayer/training sessions at his residence every
Tuesday and Sunday. Plainly, holding a prayer session at one‟s own
residence cannot be termed as carrying on missionary activity.
10. The petitioner has also filed an affidavit affirming that Versys
offers a host of business development services including co-working
spaces (business labs), a Business Development Center (BDC), and
consultancy and training services. He has affirmed that Versys
employed eleven persons, including the petitioner. Some of the
employees were qualified engineers, consultants and administrators.
The petitioner has also affirmed that the petitioner had provided
consultancy / training to various clients including Mindtree, Volvo and
Procter & Gamble. The petitioner is also highly qualified and holds
several degrees. The plain reading of the affidavit of the petitioner
indicates that he is fully employed in the bona fide business of Versys.
11. It is material to note that none of the aforesaid averments could
be effectively controverted. Thus, the only conclusion that can be
drawn is that the petitioner was fully employed in the business of his
company, and the conclusion of the respondents that the petitioner was
engaged in missionary activities is without any basis.
12. Right to practice one‟s religion is a Fundamental Right and any
action of the respondents seeking to impose a punitive measure on that
ground, cannot be sustained. Therefore, its action to place the
petitioner in "Blacklist 'B' category", is wholly unsustainable.
13. Accordingly, the decision to blacklist the petitioner is set aside.
The petitioner would be at liberty to apply for an appropriate visa for
visiting India and the same would be considered by the respondents
uninfluenced by the decision to blacklist the petitioner.
14. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The pending
application stands disposed of.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
FEBRUARY 14, 2019
DR/pkv
