HC backs denial of entry to OCIs involved in sexual offences

The Delhi high court has held that the Centre is empowered to deny an overseas citizen of India (OCI) card holder entry into India if it receives information indicating that the person is a convicted child sex offender in a foreign country.

“In the opinion of this court, once the respondents have received information that an individual has been involved in a crime of such nature in a foreign country, they are well within their rights to prevent such a person from setting foot on Indian soil,” a bench of justice Amit Mahajan said in a November 3 verdict, released on November 4.

The court delivered the verdict while hearing the case of a man of Indian origin who held a foreign passport and an OCI card. Upon arriving at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, on January 7, 2026, he was served with an order denying him permission to enter India and directing him to depart on the first available flight.

His counsel argued that the order was non-speaking, failed to disclose specific reasons or grounds for refusing entry, and merely referred to him as a registered child sex offender. This was despite his OCI registration having neither been cancelled nor suspended.

The counsel further submitted that proceedings against the man had been initiated in the United States in 2019, culminating in a no-contest plea in October 2022. He was subsequently granted probation without any custodial sentence. It was also contended that the proceedings did not involve any child or minor and that the competent foreign authorities had granted him permission to travel to India on December 15, 2025.

The Centre’s counsel Amit Tiwari submitted that the man had been blacklisted from entering India on the ground that he was a registered child sex offender in the United States of America. He argued that the March 2023 Office Memorandum permitted the blacklisting of individuals convicted of child-related offences. He further contended that the decision to blacklist an individual falls within the sovereign domain of the State, adding that no foreign national can claim a right to enter or reside in India as a matter of entitlement.

In its four-page order, the court dismissed the petition, holding that refusing an individual entry into the country is a sovereign function of the State, rooted in considerations of national security, foreign policy and administrative discretion.

It further observed that the material forming the basis of the man’s blacklisting was confidential and classified in nature and, therefore, could not be disclosed to him in the interest of the country’s security and integrity.