Humanitarian Mandamus to Retrieve a Deported Long-Term Visa Holder to Pursue Citizenship Under Section 5(1)(d) of the Citizenship Act, 1955

1. Introduction

In Sajjad Ahmed v. Union of India th Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and Others (High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu, decided on 25.03.2026 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. A. Chowdhary), the petitioner—an Indian citizen and government teacher—sought relief under Article 226 against the deportation of his son (Aasim Sajjad aka Fardin Sajjad) to Pakistan.

The core grievance was that the petitioner’s son, who had lived and studied in India for many years on permissions/visa extensions, was allegedly picked up in a police action and deported to Pakistan pursuant to a “Leave India Notice”, without an effective opportunity to pursue (i) extension of his long-term stay and (ii) a pending/attempted application for Indian citizenship as a minor child of an Indian citizen under Section 5(1)(d) of the Citizenship Act, 1955.

Key Issues

  • Whether the Court can direct the Union of India (MHA) to retrieve/repatriate a deported person so that he may pursue visa/LTV extension and citizenship processes.
  • How the Court should balance the State’s sovereign power over deportation with humanitarian considerations and family unity where citizenship/visa matters are asserted to be pending.
  • What directions are appropriate when the MHA portal shows a citizenship application status as “not received yet”, yet the applicant claims to have applied online.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by issuing time-bound directions to the Ministry of Home Affairs:

  1. To retrieve the petitioner’s son (Aasim Sajjad aka Fardin Sajjad) who had been deported pursuant to the “Leave India Notice” dated April 25, 2025, so as to enable him to pursue his application for extension of long-term visa and his citizenship application under Section 5(1)(d).
  2. To consider grant of citizenship in favour of the petitioner’s son, referencing the claimed application (MHA File No.2024030441).

The Court directed that the above exercise be carried out expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks, explicitly invoking the human aspect and “sacrosanct human values and rights.”

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

(a) Rakshanda Rashid through Falak Zahoor Vs. Union of India & Ors (WP(C) No. 1072/2025)

The Court treated this decision as the principal local reference point on the remedial technique of directing the Union of India to retrieve a deported person. In that matter, on “identical facts” as recorded in the present judgment, a co-ordinate bench had issued an ad interim direction to retrieve the deported petitioner back to J&K to facilitate family reunion and to enable pursuit of pending status-related applications.

Influence on the present case: the judgment demonstrates that, within this High Court’s writ jurisdiction, “retrieval” is viewed as an available public law remedy in exceptional circumstances, particularly where deportation frustrates access to lawful administrative processes (LTV/citizenship) and implicates family unity/humanitarian concerns.

(b) UOI V. Rakshanda Rashid & Ors (LPA No.118/2025)

The Division Bench order is significant for two reasons:

  • It records that, with the assistance of the Solicitor General, the Government decided to grant a visitor visa to enable pursuit of citizenship and LTV-related applications.
  • It contains an express caveat that the decision was based on the peculiar facts and circumstances and “shall not constitute a precedent, in any manner.”

Influence on the present case: although the Division Bench cautioned against treating its disposal as a binding precedent, the present judgment relies on the underlying administrative-constitutional accommodation reflected in that litigation—i.e., when deportation effectively blocks access to legal remedies, the State may be directed (or persuaded) to facilitate re-entry so that the person can pursue lawful status determinations.

Importantly, the present judgment does not cite any Supreme Court authority on deportation/citizenship; it instead grounds relief primarily in humanitarian values and the High Court’s constitutional writ power, supported by the High Court’s own recent experience in the Rakshanda Rashid line of cases.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

(a) Reconciling sovereign deportation power with constitutional writ relief

The respondents asserted a classic position: deportation is an exercise of sovereign power to regulate entry, stay, and departure of foreigners, and the petitioner’s son was allegedly in India without a valid visa at the point of the Leave India Notice.

The Court did not expressly invalidate the Leave India Notice or adjudicate the factual controversy about the manner of removal. Instead, it adopted a remedial balancing approach:

  • It accepted that the son had a long history of stay in India on extensions granted by competent authorities.
  • It emphasized the child’s deep ties to India (education and upbringing since 2007) and the absence of effective support in Pakistan.
  • It held that “human values and rights” justify judicial intervention to ensure the person is not left stranded in a way that defeats access to the legal process.

The operative direction is framed as “to consider” retrieval and citizenship, but it is coupled with a concrete time-line and purpose (to enable pursuit of LTV extension/citizenship), making it closer to a positive mandamus with structured discretion than a mere advisory observation.

(b) Ensuring access to the statutory route under Section 5(1)(d) of the Citizenship Act, 1955

The petitioner invoked Section 5(1)(d) (registration of a minor child of an Indian citizen) and pleaded that an online application had been made. The Union’s objection was procedural: the portal reflected the status as “not received yet”, and that processing would occur only upon receipt with proper recommendation through the UT administration.

The Court’s reasoning implicitly recognizes that when citizenship/visa processes are pending, asserted, or administratively “in limbo”, deportation that prevents the applicant from effectively pursuing those processes can produce severe and disproportionate hardship—particularly where the applicant’s parent is an Indian citizen and the applicant has resided in India for a long period.

(c) Humanitarian and family-unity considerations as decisive equities

The judgment foregrounds the “human tragedy” of partition and cross-border family ties. While not framed explicitly in doctrinal terms (such as proportionality), the Court’s reasoning functions as an equitable proportionality check: the hardship and rights-implications of leaving the son in Pakistan (described as a conflict-affected context in the pleadings) outweigh the State’s interest in immediate removal, at least to the extent necessary to allow lawful status adjudication.

Notably, the judgment contains a factual inconsistency about where the mother died (pleadings: in India; paragraph 12: “expired in Gujjranwala Pakistan”), but the Court treats the central humanitarian fact as stable: the mother is deceased and the son is effectively dependent on the Indian-citizen father.

3.3 Impact

(a) Practical precedent within J&K/Ladakh writ practice

Even though UOI V. Rakshanda Rashid & Ors stated that its resolution should not be treated as a precedent, this judgment shows that High Court benches may continue to order (or require consideration of) retrieval/re-entry where deportation disrupts:

  • long-standing residence permitted by the State through repeated extensions, and
  • pending or pursuable legal processes for LTV extension and/or citizenship by registration.

(b) Administrative accountability and timeline discipline

The eight-week timeline may push the MHA and local administrative chain (DM/DC recommendation route) to operationalize clearer workflows. Future litigants may rely on this approach to seek:

  • time-bound consideration of online citizenship applications that show “not received yet,” and
  • interim facilitation of presence in India where physical presence is practically necessary to pursue status regularization.

(c) Litigation framing in deportation cases involving family ties

The judgment signals that deportation disputes framed solely as “foreigners must leave” may be judicially re-evaluated when:

  • the person has strong family ties to an Indian citizen,
  • the person has lived in India for an extended period on permissions, and
  • deportation effectively forecloses statutory remedies (citizenship/visa regularization) rather than merely enforcing immigration control.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Writ of Mandamus: A High Court order directing a public authority to perform a public/legal duty. Here, it is used to compel the MHA to act—within a time frame—so the person can pursue lawful status processes.
  • Long Term Visa (LTV): A permission category allowing longer stay than ordinary visit visas. The judgment treats the petitioner’s son as having been on extended permissions akin to LTV status, renewed periodically.
  • “Leave India Notice”: An administrative direction requiring a foreign national to depart, often a precursor or basis for deportation. The Court’s focus is less on its formal validity and more on the downstream consequence: it prevented access to pending legal remedies.
  • Section 5(1)(d), Citizenship Act, 1955: A route for registration as a citizen for a minor child of an Indian citizen, subject to statutory conditions and governmental processing.
  • “Sovereign power” over foreigners: The State’s authority to control entry and removal. The judgment does not deny this power, but it subjects its exercise (and its consequences) to constitutional supervision where humanitarian and process-access concerns arise.

5. Conclusion

The judgment’s central contribution is its affirmation that, in exceptional humanitarian circumstances—especially involving a long-resident child of an Indian citizen with a plausible statutory pathway under Section 5(1)(d)—the High Court may deploy Article 226 to require the Union of India to facilitate retrieval/re-entry so the individual can meaningfully pursue visa regularization and citizenship determination.

While the Court does not finally adjudicate citizenship entitlement on merits, it strengthens a pragmatic constitutional principle: deportation should not operate to defeat access to lawful status adjudication where strong family unity and humanitarian equities are present, and where the State itself has historically enabled the person’s residence through repeated extensions.