In a compliance hearing, the Court was informed that the petitioner's name was removed from the blacklist and visa permission granted. The Court noted the petitioner's dual Bangladeshi-Australian citizenship and disposed of the petition for want of further orders.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~3
C�R �o. DLHC011065542025
Through: Mr. Zahid Hanief and Ms. Disha Chauhan, Advs. Mob: 7210525656 Email: [email protected]
versus
R. D. MEEENA AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr Jivesh Kumar Tiwari, CGSC with Ms. Samiksha and Ms. Nandini Aggarwal, Advs. Mob: 9811612855 Email: [email protected]
CORAM: HO�'BLE MS. JUSTICE MI�I PUSHKAR�A
MI�I PUSHKAR�A, J (ORAL):
“1. The Petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the Respondent to permit the Petitioner to visit India and to remove the name of the Petitioner from the blacklist category restraining the Petitioner from entering the country.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 3.08.2026 10:20:14
Page 1 of 5
2. Notice was issued on 26.05.2023. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Respondent/Union of India.
3. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the Petitioner has been blacklisted as a blacklist Grade-A and the order of blacklisting has been issued at the behest of the security agency. It is further stated that the Petitioner is blacklisted as he entered twice on two different identities and on the basis of fictitious address which could not be traced.
4. Mr. Manish Mohan, learned CGSC, very fairly points out the a Review Committee has been constituted by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Petitioner can approach the Review Committee giving his reasons as to why the Petitioner should not be blacklisted and this Court should relegate the Petitioner to avail the said remedy available to him instead of entertaining the instant writ petition.
5. The suggestion given by Mr. Manish Mohan, learned CGSC, is reasonable one. Resultantly, the Petitioner is directed to approach the Review Committee constituted by the Ministry of Home Affairs to consider his case.
6. The Respondents are directed to provide the Petitioner with the two addresses which have been furnished by the Petitioner in his Visa applications which is the basis for blacklisting the Petitioner. Let the addresses be furnished within a period of 10 days from today.
7. The Petitioner is permitted to file a representation before the Review Committee within two weeks thereafter. The Review Committee is requested to consider the petition of the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from today.
8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
9. The writ petition is disposed of along with pending application(s), if any.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 3.08.2026 10:20:14
Page 2 of 5
“xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 3.08.2026 10:20:14
Page 3 of 5
category.
“xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 3.08.2026 10:20:14
Page 4 of 5
MI�I PUSHKAR�A, J
AUGUST 17, 2026/ SK
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 3.08.2026 10:20:14
Page 5 of 5
Palash Kumar Dutta
R. D. Meena
Union of India
Mishi Pushkara
As recorded by the court registry
Proceedings for wilful disobedience of a court order under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
