Lady Deported To Pakistan After Pahalgam Attack Allowed To Return: Centre Tells J&K&L High Court

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal recorded the Union Government's assurance, conveyed by Solicitor General of India Mr. Tushar Mehta, that the respondent would be considered for a visitor visa.

The decision, the Bench clarified, was taken owing to the “peculiar facts and circumstances” of the case and “shall not constitute a precedent in any manner.”

Rakshanda Rashid, a resident of Islamabad, originally entered India in 1990 on a visitor visa and stayed on a long-term visa (LTV) that was renewed annually. She married an Indian national and had lived in Jammu for decades. Her LTV was valid until January 13, 2025, and an application for renewal was made on January 4, 2025.

However, in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror incident, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued a sweeping revocation of all existing valid visas (except specified exemptions) under Section 3(1) of the Foreigners Act, 1946. On April 28, 2025, she was served a Leave India Notice, directing her to exit the country by the following day. Rakshanda was deported on April 29, escorted to the Wagah-Attari border.

She challenged the deportation and the learned Single Judge, by an interim order dated June 6, 2025, directed the authorities to bring her back within 10 days, a directive that triggered the present appeals.

When the matter came up before the Division Bench on July 2, the Court stayed the interim order. During the hearing on July 22, Solicitor General Mehta requested time to explore “if the respondent could be helped in any manner.”

Upon reappearing on July 30, Mr. Mehta informed the Court that an in-principle decision had been taken by the competent authority to grant a fresh visitor visa to Rakshanda Rashid.

The counsel for the respondent confirmed that his client was agreeable to the course suggested and would withdraw her writ petition. Accordingly, the Bench noted that petition was deemed withdrawn, and the impugned interim order lost its operative relevance.

The Court commended the approach adopted by the Union Government and clarified that the relief granted was a one-time exception based on the specific facts. “The in-principle decision... shall not constitute a precedent in any manner,” the Bench stated.

The appeals were formally disposed of, and the respondents were permitted to pursue their applications for Indian citizenship and long-term visa, already pending before the appropriate authorities.

APPEARANCE:

Case-Title: Union of India vs Rakshanda Rashid and others, 2025

Tushar Mehta, SGI, for Petitioner/Appellant

Mr. Ankur Sharma, Advocate. Ms.Himani Khajuria, For Respondent