Disposed¶23

Navdeep Singh Murbay v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC8 Jul 2026W.P.(C)/8942/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(C) 8942/2026; High Court of Delhi; 08.07.2026; Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma; Navdeep Singh Murbay v. Union of India and Ors.; writ petition disposed of; petitioner seeking entry into India on UK passport no. 128425583; deportation and refusal of entry reasons to be furnished; direction to respondents to decide representation before the concerned Committee within ten weeks; liberty to approach the Court thereafter; exemption application allowed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the petitioner's representation before the concerned Committee within ten weeks, under intimation to the petitioner, and liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court if the representation is not decided within the stipulated time limit. ¶23

Navdeep Singh Murbay Vs Union of India and Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to be allowed to enter India on his United Kingdom passport, notwithstanding any order/direction restraining his entry into India. +1 more

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The exemption application CM APPL. 41959/2026 was allowed subject to all just exceptions, and the application stands disposed of.

¶11

Key takeaways

The Court directed that on the petitioner filing a representation before the concerned Committee, the respondents shall decide it within a period of ten weeks from the date of the order, under intimation to the petitioner; if the representation is not decided within the stipulated time limit, the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the Court.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.), W.P.(C) 8942/2026, decided 08.07.2026: The petitioner sought a mandamus directing the respondents to allow him to enter India on his United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Passport (No. 128425583), quashing of any order/direction restraining his entry into India, and furnishing of information/reasons for his deportation and refusal of entry into India. Notice was issued and accepted by counsel for the respondents. Taking note of the issue involved, the Court directed that on the petitioner filing a representation before the concerned Committee, the respondents shall decide it within ten weeks, under intimation to the petitioner; failing decision within the stipulated time, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Court. The writ petition stands disposed of in these terms; the accompanying exemption application (CM APPL. 41959/2026) was allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶1

$~30

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 8942/2026

¶4

NAVDEEP SINGH MURBAY .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Surya Kant Vyas and Mr. Hitesh Nandal, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vikrant Nilesh Goyal, Mr. Inderpreet Singh and Mr.Kunal Dixit, Advs.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

¶9

O R D E R % 08.07.2026

¶10

CM APPL. 41959/2026 (exemption)

¶11

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

Application stands disposed of.

¶13

W.P.(C) 8942/2026

¶14

By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks following reliefs:

¶15

“A. Allow the present writ petition and issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to enter India on his United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Passport bearing no. 128425583;

¶16

B. Issue a writ of or in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction calling for the records of the petitioner’s case;

¶17

C. Issue a writ of in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing any order/direction restraining petitioner’s entry into India;

¶18

D. Issue a writ of in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate

¶19

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2026 at 11:48:44

¶20

writ, directing Respondents to furnish information/reasons for petitioner’s deportation and refusal of entry into India;”

¶21

Issue notice. The learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶22

After hearing learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and in view of the issue involved in the instant petition, this Court finds it appropriate to direct that on the petitioner being filing representation before the concerned Committee, the respondents will decide the same within a period of ten weeks from date, under intimation to the petitioner. If the representation is not decided within the stipulated time limit, the petitioner will be at liberty to approach this Court.

¶23

In above terms, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶24

The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.

¶25

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

¶26

JULY 08, 2026/A

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/07/2026 at 11:48:44

Navdeep Singh Murbay v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Navdeep Singh Murbay v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nazir Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner & Anr.

Ajay Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Gian Chand & Ors.

Darshan Lal & Ors. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Master Sorabh Rathor through His Guardian Smt Savitri Vs North Delhi Public School and Ors.

Sudhir Rana Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Parth Shokeen (Proprietor Parth Enterprises) Vs Sales Tax Officer Class Ii/Avato Ward 62 Zone 5 & Ors.

Rajendra Thakur & Anr. Vs Govt of NCT Delhi & Anr.

Abhijeet Dipke Vs Union of India and Anr.

Marquee One Events LLP through Its Partner Vs Union of India through Its Secretary of Ministry of Minority Affairs

Pune Sholapur Road Development Company Limited Vs National Highways Authority of India & Ors.

Dharam Paul Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S Swagatama Enterprises Vs Union of India & Anr.

Gurcharan Singh Bhasin Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi through Secretary Divisional Commissioner Revenue Department and Ors.