[Tablighi Jamaat] Karnataka HC quashes cases against 9 foreigners provided they leave country immediately, don't return for 10 years

The Karnataka High Court recently quashed criminal cases registered against nine foreign nationals who had attended the Tablighi Jamaat religious congregation amid the COVID-19 pandemic, on the condition that they immediately leave the country..The accused were also required to give an undertaking that they will not visit India again for the next 10 years..The Single Judge Bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit further clarified that the foreigners would also have to pay the fine amount that may be levied by the competent authority..The petitioners were engaged in religious propagation in Tumakuru, Karnataka after attending the Tablighi Jamaat meet at Nizamuddin in Delhi, which later became a centre for the spread of COVID-19 in March. They were among the Tablighi Jamaat members blacklisted by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs. .All blacklisted foreign nationals who were part of Tablighi Jamaat Markaz can make representations to authorities: Supreme Court.Before the High Court, the petitioners sought to question the legality of the criminal provisions invoked against them for violating the Foreigners Act, 1946..Counsel for the petitioners had argued that the initiation of criminal proceedings is on a wrong assumption that the Visas of the foreigners were Tourist Visas. .As this is not the case, there is no prohibition for professing or propagating the principles of Tablighi Jamaat in a religious gathering, it was argued. Even otherwise, the Central government has the power to relieve the foreigners of criminal action after accepting the fine amounts paid by them. Therefore, such benefit ought to be extended to the accused, the petitioner counsel pleaded. .It was further argued that there was no specific prohibition in the Visas in question for preaching religious principles of the Tablighi Jammat congregation..Countering this view, counsel for the Central and state governments contended that their visas were "e-Tourist Visas" and therefore, the foreigners were not permitted to attend any religious gathering. .Even if the accused foreigners are shown mercy, it was argued, the Court should prescribe similar conditions as were stipulated by the Madras High Court in Md. Kameual Islam and Others v. State, wherein a condition was imposed on the accused in that case to leave the country immediately..The Court firstly observed that the entire case revolves around the nature of the Visa. It went on to agree with the state government that the Visas of the foreigners in question were "e-Tourist VISAS". The order states,."e-Visas are granted only for the specified purposes, and not granted for any other purpose; the missionary activities such as propagation of religion, participating in religious congregation and proselytization are not enlisted as the permissible activities/purposes; as already mentioned above, such purposes/activities or the like of course sans proselytization are confined to Missionary Visa, and none else; therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners to the contrary cannot be countenanced.".On the petitioner's argument that there was no specific prohibition on e-Tourist Visa holders attending religious gatherings, the Court said, ."The very nature of these Visas, what is permissible is what is specifically provided for and therefore, the question of one looking for prohibition is irrelevant to say the least. In other words, what is not provided for in the Visa, is deemed to be impermissible; thus, the general principle that what all is not prohibited is permissible for a natural person and what all is not provided for is impermissible for a juristic person, ordinarily cannot be invoked by foreign nationals."Karnataka High Court.However, bearing in mind the "graceful stand of the respondents which is consistent with the great traditions of this country throughout the history", the Court proceeded to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the nine accused foreigners. .Pertinently, the Court also clarified that the judgment in the said case shall not be viewed "as a precedent", as decisions rendered on concessions are ordinarily not cited as binding precedents. .The High Court also clarified that the concession shown to the foreign nationals should not be construed as an extension of their Visa so as to facilitate their stay any longer than what was reasonably required..Thus, the Court directed the Centre to aid and ensure their exit from the country if they were not required in any other cases..This apart, the Court further declined to quash criminal cases against three others, who had assisted the nine foreign nationals to participate in the religious congregation as their case stood on a "different footing". It directed the police to complete the probe into that case within six months..On a concluding note, the Court expressed that it found no merit in the petitioners' contention stating that the police had initiated action based on “prejudiced media propaganda”. .The Court further appreciated the service of police personnel opining that they were performing yeoman service during the COVID-19 pandemic and had exercised a lot of restraint despite running a huge risk of infection and tolerating attacks/assaults..[Read order here]