In a move that starkly undermines constitutional protections and judicial urgency, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has secured a stay order from the Division Bench of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court, suspending the June 6 directive to repatriate 63-year-old Rakshanda Rashid, a Pakistani-origin woman who was deported in April despite having lived in Jammu for nearly four decades on a long-term visa (LTV).
The MHA filed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) on July 1, challenging the single-judge order passed by Justice Rahul Bharti, which had strongly criticised Rashid’s removal as a violation of her legal status and fundamental rights. On July 3, the Division Bench led by Chief Justice Arun Palli admitted the appeal and granted an interim stay, halting the enforcement of the repatriation order until further hearing.
The stay now places the continued suffering of a woman already rendered vulnerable, alone in a country she has no ties to, on procedural pause, despite the gravity of findings already made by the High Court in her favour.
Justice Bharti’s June 6 order: “A case of constitutional SOS”
Justice Bharti’s order had framed Rashid’s deportation as not only procedurally flawed but morally and constitutionally indefensible. Rashid had arrived in India in the late 1980s, married an Indian citizen, and lived in Jammu ever since. Her LTV had been renewed annually, and she had applied for Indian citizenship in 1996, which remains pending to this day.
On April 29, in the aftermath of the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack, in which 26 people were killed. The MHA issued an order cancelling visas of Pakistani nationals, but explicitly exempted LTV holders and Pakistani women married to Indian citizens. Rashid fell under both protected categories. Yet, early that morning, local police took her from her home and drove her to the Attari border, from where she was deported without a court order, without legal representation, and despite ongoing processing of her LTV renewal.
Justice Bharti took note of this in harsh terms, noting that Rashid’s deportation:
“This Court is bearing in mind background that the reference that the petitioner was having LTV status at relevant point of time which per-se may not have warranted her deportation but without examining her case in better perspective and coming up with a proper order with respect to her deportation from the authorities concerned, still she came to be forced out.” (Para 4)
He went on to declare that the Ministry of Home Affairs must retrieve her from Pakistan, stating:
“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)
“Given the exceptional nature of facts and circumstances of the case whereby the petitioner-Rakshanda Rashid wife of Sheikh Zahoor Ahmed has been purportedly deported to Pakistan in the recent drive undertaken by the Government of India post Pahalgam carnage, this Court is constrained to direct the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India to retrieve the petitioner back to J&K, India so as to facilitate the reunion of the petitioner with her husband-Sheikh Zahoor Ahmed in Jammu.” (Para 5)
The order gave the Union Government ten days to comply, listing the matter for July 1 for a compliance update. (Detailed piece may be read here.)
MHA’s Appeal: Technical objections, procedural deflection
Instead of complying, the MHA filed an appeal just as the deadline approached. In its Letters Patent Appeal, the MHA did not contest the humanitarian facts of the case or the petitioner’s prolonged residence in India. Instead, it advanced technical objections that sought to side-line the substance of the June 6 order.
Key arguments made by the MHA in the appeal included:
- LTV not valid at time of deportation: The MHA claimed that as of April 29, 2025, Ms. Rashid’s long-term visa had expired, and therefore she was no longer under legal protection. They argued that the exemption granted post-Pahalgam was not applicable, since the LTV “did not exist” on the date of deportation.
- Delay in filing LTV renewal application: The Ministry alleged that the LTV renewal application had been filed on March 8, not January as claimed by the petitioner. This discrepancy was used to argue that the application was late and hence invalid.
- Order interferes with sovereign deportation powers: The MHA asserted that the single-judge order unlawfully encroaches upon the sovereign and executive powers of the Union Government to determine immigration and deportation matters, particularly in the wake of a serious national security incident.
- Judicial overreach in “retrieving” a foreign national: The Ministry argued that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the Union Government to bring a foreign national back into Indian Territory—an act, they claimed, that rests exclusively with the executive under foreign and immigration law.
These arguments, framed as legal proceduralism, evaded the central concern raised by Justice Bharti: that even the deportation of a foreign national must conform to constitutional safeguards, especially when the person in question has lived in India for 38 years and has not committed any offence.
Facts that contradict the MHA’s version
The MHA’s factual claims are sharply contradicted by documentary evidence provided in the original writ petition:
- Email dated April 26 from the FRRO acknowledged that the LTV renewal application was under process.
- Email dated May 9 confirmed that the application had been forwarded to higher authorities for approval.
- These emails undermine the MHA’s claim that no valid application existed at the time of deportation.
Further, Ms. Rashid’s daughter, Fatima Sheikh, told The Hindu that the application was filed in January, not March, and that the March 8 date was deliberately misrepresented by police to justify a pre-planned removal. She also said her mother was denied access to lawyers, given no notice, and is now struggling alone in Pakistan, with no relatives, no income, and deteriorating health, as provided by the report.
The Division Bench’s Stay: A reversal of urgency and rights
On July 3, without examining these contradictions or addressing the humanitarian stakes of the matter, the Division Bench granted an interim stay on the repatriation order, delaying relief without a finding of fault.
The stay has effectively nullified the urgency recognised by the single-judge bench. No timeline for repatriation. No safeguard for Rashid in Pakistan. Just indefinite suspension, as the case winds its way through another round of legal arguments.
This raises pressing constitutional and ethical concerns:
- Can the state correct an illegal act (a forcible deportation without process) by citing procedural technicalities in retrospect?
- Should courts allow such technicalities to override basic rights and urgent judicial directions rooted in justice and dignity?
- Does the judicial system recognise the harm caused by delay itself, especially when the person harmed is elderly, sick, and stateless in practice?
The appeal has been admitted and will now be heard on merits. Until then, Rakshanda Rashid remains stranded in Pakistan, in legal limbo, without family or resources. The SOS call issued by the Court has been muted by procedure, and a woman who never should have been deported in the first place is forced to wait for her humanity to be re-recognised.
What the High Court gave with one hand, compassion, clarity, and courage, the system has now taken away, at least for the moment. And the message it sends is deeply worrying: that even in clear cases of wrongful state action, relief can be stayed, and rights can be delayed, if not denied.
Related: