2009 (9) TMI 1040 - HC - Indian Laws

Foreign National's Challenge to PIO Card Cancellation Dismissed for Lack of Legal Standing

Craig Maxwell Sterry Versus Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

Craig Maxwell Sterry Versus Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India (UOI) and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Locus standi of a foreign national to file the petition.2. Enforcement of rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India for a foreign national.3. Validity and implications of the cancellation of the PIO Card.Summary:1. Locus Standi of a Foreign National:The respondent No. 1 argued that the petitioner, being a foreign national, has no locus standi to file the petition and there is no violation of any fundamental right available to him as a foreign national. The affidavit by Mr. Ashok Kumar, Under Secretary to the Government of India, stated that the PIO Card was issued under executive powers and there is no right conferred upon the petitioner to hold the PIO Card indefinitely.2. Enforcement of Rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21:The petitioner argued that despite being a foreign national, he can resort to Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as his entry into India is valid and he is not an illegal immigrant. The court examined various judgments, including *Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das* and *Hans Muller of Nurenburg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail, Calcutta*, to determine the extent of rights available to foreign nationals. The court concluded that fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(d) and (e) are unavailable to foreigners, and their rights are confined to Article 21 for life and liberty, which does not include the right to reside and settle in India.3. Validity and Implications of the Cancellation of the PIO Card:The petitioner received a communication from respondent No. 3 informing him that his PIO Card had been canceled by the Ministry of Home Affairs, and he was required to hand it over. The court referred to the PIO Card Scheme, 2002, particularly Clause 11(e), which allows the Central Government to cancel the PIO Card if it is not conducive to public interest without assigning reasons. The court held that the petitioner was aware that the PIO Card was a concession and not a right, and the Central Government has unfettered discretion to cancel it in public interest.Conclusion:The petition was dismissed as the petitioner does not hold a constitutional or statutory right to challenge the cancellation of the PIO Card. The court found no threat to the petitioner's life or liberty and upheld the Central Government's executive action. The operation of the order was suspended for two weeks to allow the petitioner to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court.