More than three months after she was summarily deported to Pakistan despite having lived in Jammu for nearly four decades, 63-year-old Rakshanda Rashid is finally being allowed to return to India. The Union Government, which had earlier cancelled all short-duration visas issued to Pakistani nationals in the aftermath of the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack, has now made a rare exception. As per the report of Indian Express, the Union of India has decided to issue her a visitor’s visa, paving the way for her return and reunion with her husband and four children—all Indian citizens residing in Jammu & Kashmir.
The decision, described as an “in-principle” nod after high-level deliberations, was conveyed to the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on July 30 by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who said the move stemmed from the “peculiar facts and unusual circumstances” of the case. This marks a significant climb-down by the Centre, which had earlier defended her expulsion on technical grounds. Mehta further stated that once Rashid returns, she may also pursue her two pending applications—one for Indian citizenship (filed in 1996) and the other for long-term visa (LTV) renewal.
From Deportation to Hope: A timeline of arbitrary state action
Rakshanda Rashid, a Pakistani national by birth and resident of Jammu’s Talab Khatikan locality, entered India legally in 1990 on a 14-day visitor visa. Her stay was subsequently regularised through a year-on-year Long-Term Visa (LTV), granted on the strength of her marriage to Indian citizen Sheikh Zahoor Ahmed, a retired government servant. Over the years, she built a life in Jammu, raising four children, all of whom are Indian citizens.
However, on April 25, 2025, just three days after a deadly terror attack in Pahalgam, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) abruptly cancelled all visas of Pakistani nationals. On April 28, Rashid was served a “Leave India Notice” by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), despite the fact that her LTV was valid until January 13, 2025, and her renewal application had already been filed.
In a move devoid of legal due process, she was forcibly taken from her home early on April 29 and escorted to the Attari-Wagah border, where she was pushed across into Pakistan. She was denied legal representation, not provided with a formal deportation order, and removed while her LTV extension request was still pending, a fact later confirmed through official emails from the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO).
Justice Bharti’s Resounding Rebuke: A “Constitutional SOS”
Rashid’s family immediately approached the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, seeking redress. In a powerful June 6 order, Justice Rahul Bharti denounced the deportation as both unconstitutional and morally indefensible. Observing that the petitioner was lawfully residing in India on an LTV and had a pending citizenship application, the judge framed the case as an extraordinary breach of due process, driven more by fear and bureaucratic indifference than by law.
“Human rights are the most sacrosanct component of a human life and, therefore, there are occasions when a constitutional court is supposed to come up with SOS like indulgence notwithstanding the merits and demerits of a case which can be adjudicated only upon in due course of time and therefore, this Court is coming up with a direction to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India to bring back the petitioner from her deportation.” (Para 3–5, Judgment dated June 6).
Justice Bharti recognised that Rashid had not been deported through lawful procedure, nor was her case considered individually despite the MHA’s own circular exempting Pakistani women married to Indian citizens and LTV holders from the mass visa cancellations.
Detailed report may be read here.
MHA’s Appeal: Deflecting responsibility through technicalities
Rather than complying with the order, the MHA filed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) on July 1, a day before the compliance hearing. In its appeal, the MHA avoided challenging the core humanitarian facts of the case. Instead, it relied heavily on technical defences, arguing:
- LTV had lapsed: The Ministry claimed Rashid’s visa was no longer valid on the date of deportation, making her an illegal resident.
- Delay in application: It alleged that her LTV renewal application was filed only on March 8, not January, and was therefore invalid.
- Violation of sovereign powers: The Union argued that Justice Bharti’s directive infringed on the Union’s sovereign authority to regulate deportations.
- Judicial overreach: It contended that courts cannot direct the executive to bring back a deported foreign national.
These claims, however, were flatly contradicted by documentary proof:
- An April 26 email from the FRRO confirmed that her visa renewal application was under process.
- A May 9 email stated the application had been escalated to higher authorities.
- Her daughter, Fatima Sheikh, alleged that the March 8 date was fabricated by local police to justify a planned removal. She maintained that the application was in fact submitted in January.
July 3: Division Bench stays repatriation order
On July 3, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal admitted the appeal and issued an interim stay on Justice Bharti’s order. In doing so, it temporarily blocked any attempt to bring Rashid back—even as the facts weighed overwhelmingly in her favour.
The stay order neither addressed the procedural illegality of her deportation nor provided any immediate remedy for her isolation in Pakistan. There was no timeline, no hearing on the merits, and no protection granted to a woman stranded in a country where she has no familial or social ties.
Detailed report may be read here.
Now, a narrow window opens
The Union’s recent reversal, however limited, is a vital first step. By deciding to grant Rakshanda Rashid a visitor visa, it has acknowledged, however tacitly, that her removal was deeply flawed. The decision also opens the door to her pursuing Indian citizenship, a process she began nearly 30 years ago. Importantly, as per the IE report, the Government made clear this is a one-off move, not to be treated as precedent.
While this move may not yet constitute full justice, it allows for something that has been denied since April: reunification, dignity, and the possibility of healing. But if the principle of human rights means anything at all, then the case of Rakshanda Rashid stands as a chilling example of what happens when bureaucracy overrides the Constitution—and a hopeful one, now, of what becomes possible when justice reasserts itself.
Related:
J&K High court orders repatriation of 63-year-old woman deported to Pakistan without due process