WP/7077/2026 of Alena Evgenievna Pavlova Vs The Union of India on 21 April 2026

ORDER:

. Petitioner is a Russian national bearing Passport No. 769734116, who pursued her education in Linguistics and obtained a Specialist Diploma in Forcign Languages and Cultures from Vologda University, Russia. It is stated that upon completion of studies, she engaged in translating Indian literature into Russian and, since 2018, has been actively involved in voluntary seva activities with Sri Sathya Sai Prakashana, Muddenahalli, including assisting in translation of Bhagavad Gita into Russian. It is further stated that her association with the said organization necessitated frequent travel to lndia

1.1. It is staled, petitioner was in a relationship of eight years rvith her husb:rnd late Mr. V.M.R. Swarag, during which period shc visited India on multiple occasions on Tourist Visas to mect him and his family, and though they intended to marry earlier, the same was postponed in anticipation of approval from her parents and family in Russia, who, however, ultimately disowned her on account o[ her decision to marry an Indian national. Thert:after, encouraged by the support of her mother- in-la'n,, who i" th" >",, Petitioner herein, and other family members, she solemnized her marriage with Late Mr. V.M.R. Swarag on 1O.O7.2024 in India, after arriving in June 2024 on a Tourist Visa for thc purpose of preparing for the marriage, and subsequently, a Certihcate of Marriage was issued on 21.03.202s.

1.2. Pctitiorler states that even after marriage, she periodically lravelled to Russia till May 2025 in the hope of reconciling with hcr parents, but from May 2025 onwards, she has been re siding in India with her husband and the 2.a Petitioner, and upon deciding to settle in India, she applied for conversion of her visa, pursuant to which Respondent No.3 granted her an Entry Visa (X-1) with multiple entry on

27. O3.2O25, valid for a period of one year i.e., from 27.03.2C25 lo )o.O3.2O2,'t.

J J I.3. Unfortunately, her husband expired on O4'|O'2O25 due to Multiple Organ Dysfunction Syndrome while undergoing treatment for liver lailure, and immediately thereafter, she informed Respondent No.3 through an e mail dated 04' ll '2025 about the demise of her husband and requested permission to stay in India during the validity ol her visa in order to attend the crematory rituals and related ceremonies, but Respondent No 3, without considering her request, responded by a communication dated O6. ll.2025 advising her to apply for an exit permit' I .4 . Petitioner's contention is that she is suffering from chronic vertigo, hypotension, palpitations and extreme nausea, which significantly restrict her ability to undertake long and arduous travel, and further that she has no family support in Russia as she has been disowned by her parents due to her marriage. Her mother-in-law, who is the 2"d Petitioner, is an elderly widow whose husband Late Mr. V M H' Gopal expired on

23. Og.2Olg, and her late husband was her only child, and that the 2.d Petitioner is suffering from chronic cardiac ailments, has undergone heart surgery, and has mobility issues and other health complications, thereby requiring constant care and support, which is presently being provided by Petitioner No i '

1.5. That after enduring an eight-year long-distance relationship and the emotional hardship of being disowned by -l her family, petitioner, it is stated, was compelled to face the suddcn hospitalizati<ln zrnd demise of her husband soon after marriage, and itt such circumstances, shc is in mourning and is required to atlencl the rnonthly memorial rites of her deceased husband until his first dcath anniversary, r'"'hich is of signilrcant importance. submitted a In vieu, of thc aforesaid circumstances, she cletailcd application dated 09.12 -2025 to Respondent No 3 secktng extenslon of her visa on sympathetic and humanltarian grounds untll completion of her husband's memorial rituals, and au off-rcer ol Respondent No.3 visited her residence on ?,1.12.2025 for rnspection and assured that her case u,ould bc cotrsider-eci com passionatcly' however, no ac[ion has been taken on t hc said application.

1.6. It is stated, petitioner's Entry Visa (X-l) is valid up to 26.03.2026, and failurc to obtain renewai would expose her to the risk of overst:ty penalties, despite the fact that she had approached Respondcnt No.3 well within time by submitting her application datcd O9.12.2025, and in compliance with the directions o[ this Court, she also submitted on line application dated 31.03.2026 bearing Application lD 041I25692M3L.

2. This Court, taking into consideration the submission that pctitioner No. i had submitted on line application clatecl 3 1.O3.2026, sceking c.'ttensiotr of visa, while reserving the case for orders, directed Respondent No.3 not to initiate any precipitative action against petitioner No. 1 till orde rs are pronounced.

3. Respondent No. 3 filed written instructions contending that Petitioner No.l, a Russian national bearing on the Passport strength thereafter, No. 769734 I 16, had initially arrived India of e-Tourist Visa bearing No. 9014AB73O, and approached the ofhce of the Foreigners Regional Registration Of[rce (FRRO), Hyderabad, by submitting an application dated 27.O3.2O25 seeking conversion of her visa. Upon consideration of her application, the said e-Tourist Visa was converted into an Entry Visa (X- I ) bearing Visa No. VTSO20OO89625, valid from 27.O3.2O25 to 26.03.2026, on the basis of her marriage to an Indian national, namely Mr. V.M.R. Swarag, holding Passport No. T9960191, which marriage was stated to have been solemnized on 21.O3.2O25.

3.1. Subsequently, Petitioner informed Respondent No.3 regarding the sudden demise of her husband and, on that basis, submitted a request seeking extension of her visa; however, as per the existing visa rules and guidelines governing such cases, Petitioner is not eligible for extension of the same category of visa. In view ol the said position under the applicable guidelines, Petitioner was advised to depart from India within () provisions govertling such contingencies.

3.2. As per the sai<i guidclines, in Indian spoLrse ol' a loreign national the validity period of hcr cxisling visa and thcreafter, to return India only upon obtaining an appropriate visa afresh, as per law. It is st:rtcd, Rt:spondent No.3 spccifically relied upon the extant visa rules an<l guidelines applicable to foreign nationals who have been grantcd Er-rtIy Visa (X- 1) on the basis of marriage to an Indian citizen, particularly in circumstances where the Indian spouse cxpired and placed rcliance on lhe relevant contingencies are contcnrplated, namel\': has a child and the foreign national

(i) cases where the cxpired, different where the couple has not remarried, extension of stay on X I visa may bc considered subject to usual checks; (ii) where thc foreign national is a childless widow or u,idower, the r:xisting X- 1 visa is to be cancelled and the individual is to be grantcd exit; (iii) where the foreign national has remarricd anothcr foreign national, no extension is permissible and exit is to be grantecl; and (iv) where the foreign national has remarried an Indian national, the existing X- I visa is to be cancelled and the individual is required to exit and re- enter on a fresh X- 1 visa. ') '> No. 1 ln thr: prescnI case, it is stated, since petitioner is, aclntittedly, a cl.rildlt:ss rvidow, hcr case squarcly lalls under the category wherein, as per the guidelines, the existing X-l visa cannot be extended and is liable to be cancelled, and she is required to be granted exit from the country. In view of the aforesaid guidelines and their applicability to-the facts of the present case, Petitioner is not eligible to continue her stay in India on the stre ngth of the existing Entry Visa (X- l) granted to her by Respondent No.3, and therefore, she has been advised to exit India within the validity of her current visa, i.e. on or before 26.03.2026. [t has further been conrended that Petitioner is at libercy to re-enter lndia after departing from the country, subject to obtaining an appropriate and valid visa in accordance with the applicable rules and procedures.

3. Heard Ms. Madhuri Bhadriraju, learned counsel for petitioners and Smt. N.V.R. Rajya Lakshmi, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government on behalf of Respondents I to

3.

4. The admitted fac[s are: Petitior-rer No. 1 is a Russian national bearing Passport No. 769734116, who entered India and subsequently married an Indian citizen, Late Mr. V.M.R. Swarag, on 1O.O7.2O24. Pursuant to such marriage, her visa was converled into an Entry Visa (X-1) on 27.03.2025, which was valid up to 26.03.2O26. Unfortunately, her husband expired on 04. 1O.2O25, and Petitioner subrnitted Application dated

ll 09.72.20'25 seeking e xtcnsion of visa well \\'ithin the subsistence of the said visa period. Tht: subsequellt online application dated

31. O3.2026 bearing Application ID 041 125692M3L has also been broughl on t ecot rl.

5. In lhe above backdrop, the principal question that arises lor consideration is whether Respondent No.3 was justified ir-r declining to consider Petitioner's request for cxtension of visa by placing sole reliance on the extant visa guidetines, withoul adr,t:rting to or evaluating the peculiar facts ancl humanitarian circumstances placed beforc il.

6. l'he stand of Respondent No.3 is founded upon the extant executive guidelines governing grant anrl extension of E[rtry Visa (X-1) to foreign nationarls married to Indian citizens. In particular. reliance has been placed upon thc provision which stipulatcs that in the case of demise of lltdian spouse, where the foreign national is a childless u'idow or widou'cr, the existing X l visa is liable to be cancelled and the individual is to be granted exit

7. There can be no qu:rrrel with the proposition that administrative authorities arc ordinarily bound to act in accordance with the governing statutory framelvork and cxecutivo instructio[rs. However, it is equally well-settled that such executive guidelrrrcs zrrc intcncied to scrve as guiding o principles and cannot be applicd rigid or mechanical rna manner so as to produce manifestly unjust or inequitable results, particularly in cases involving exceptional or compelling circumstances. The requirement of fairness in administrative action, which is a facet of Article t4 of the Constitution of India, mandates that every decision must be informed by reason and must take into account all relevant considerations.

8. In the present case, the material on record discloses a set of circumstances which are not only exceptional but also deeply rooted in humanitarian considerations. petitioner No. 1, within a short span of marriage, suffere d irreparable loss of her husband on O4.1O.2O25. It is further borne out from the record that she has been disowned by her family in her native country, thereby depriving her of any familial support system in Russia. She has also placed on record her medical condition, namely chronic vertigo, hypotension, palpitations and extreme nausea, which substantially impair her ability to undertake long- distance travel. These medical conditions, coupled with the absence of any support system in her native country, render her situation particularly precarious.

9. Additionally, it is not disputed that petitioner is presently residing with her mother-in-law, who is an elderly widow suffering from chronic cardiac ailments, has undergone i.

l0 heart surgcrv, and is lacing mobility constraints and other health issues. The material ort record indicaLcs that Petitioner No. 1 is thc sole pers()n available to provide care and support to her mother in-l:Lu', who has already lost hcr husband and only son. It is also:rsscrted that petitioner is rr:qurired to attend the monthly memorial riles of her deceased husband until his hrst death ann iversary., rvhich is a matter o[ cul( ural and religious significance, Signifit:antlv, these assertions have not been controvcrled by Rcspondelrt No.3 in specific. I O. It is furthcr of consiclerablc importance that Petitioner hacl approached Respondent No.3 within time by submitting her Applit:ation dated 09.12.2025 seeking extension of visa on hurranil.arian grounds. The record lurther reveals that ir-rspection '.r,as conducted on 3 t .12.2025 by an official of Respondent No.3 arrd an assurance u,as extended that her case would bc considered sympathetically. I{owever, no decision appears to have been taken on the said Applicarion, and she u,as instcad aclvrscrl to apply for an exit pcrmit. 1 I. The af<>rcsaid sequence of events clearly indicates that there has been a failure on the part of Respondent No.3 to mezrningfully consrder Petitioner's request in the tight of the spt:cific and compr:lling circumstances placed beforc it_ The action ol issuing rr communication dirccting Petitioner to seek ll 0l i I exit, without dealing with her Application dated O9.12.2025 and without assigning any reasons, falls short of the standards of fairness and reasonableness expected ol an administrative aut hority.

12. This Court is o[ the considered view that while the exlant visa guidelines provide a general framework, they do not oust the discretion of the competent authority to consider cases warranting special treatme nt on humanitarian grounds. The guidelines thcmselves cannot be construed as inflexible mandates that exclude consideration of exceptional situations.

13. In the facts of the present case, the refusal to even consider Petitioner's Application on its own merits, by mechanically-invoking the guideline retating to childless widows, amounts to non-application of mind and results in manifest arbitrariness. Such an approach is contrary to the settled principles governing administrative decision-making and cannot be sustained in [aw.

14. Further, this Court finds merit in the contention of Petitioner No.1 that having applied for extension o[ visa within the validiEy period, she cannot be subjected to adverse consequences such as imposition of overstay penalty on account of the inaction or delay on lhe part of the authorities in deciding the Application. To hold otherwise would result in pcnalizing her )

) for no lault atlributat)l(] This Court is therefore, satisfied that the impugned action of Rcspondent No.3, in effect, declining to consider Petir.ioncr's request for extcnsior-r o[ visa on humanitarian gr<;unds, rs arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of the principlcs of nertural justfue and fair play, and warrants interference undcr Articlc 226 of Lhe Consiitution.

15. In vicu, of thc facts and circumstances of the case, this Cor-rrt decms it :rppropriate to highligl-rt thr: relationship betrveen Russia ar.rd lndia. Both the countries maintain a "Spccial and Privilegcd Stratcgic partnership," marked by strong delense, cnergl/, ancl geopoli[ical cooperation. Russia is a top arrns supplier, provicling over 6o0l, of India,s military cquipment, rvhile Inclia has significantly increased its import of Russian crude oil. Thcir relatror-rship remains stable, focusing on a multipolar world. 'lhe pirrtne rship includcs joint development of projccts like llrahMos rnissiles and licensed production of T_9O tanks and Su-30 MKI aircraft.

15. I . Tradc has expanded rapidly, particularly in oil and lertilizers, with bilaterat trade setting records in 2023_24. Both nations are enhancing cooperation in energ, and aiming to increase bilateral investment. Russia consistently supports India's positions on ker. issues, such as Kashmir and a permancnt scat on the tjN Security Council. The partnership is l3 D based on a 78-year history, originating from the Soviet era and maintained through annual summits between Indian Prime Ministers and Russian Presidents.

15.2. Both the countries are working- to boost bilateral trade to $ 1O0 billion by 2030 and increase cooperation in the Russian Far East and the Chennai-Vladivostok Eastern Maritime Corridor. Their relationship remains crucial for India's defense and enerry securiLy while providing Russia with a signihcant, neutral partner for its "pivot to the East".

15.3. Russia (as the Soviet Union) provided critical support to India during 1971 Indo-Pakistani War, helping India secure a swift victory, which led to creation of Bangladesh. Russia provided diplomatic, military and naval assistance, countering intervention threats lrom the US and China, cementing a long-term strategic partnership. The 197 I war remains one of the clearest demonstrations of Soviet commitment to India's security. Soviet assistance allowed India to counter multi-dimensional threats from the United States, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, and potentially China. Even today, the 1971 conflict serves as a powerful reminder of how lndia navigated threats by aligning with a strategic partner at the right moment. r,.,.

I.1

16. ln the light of the relationship that is being maintained between the countries, and in particular taking into consideration the fact that petitioner No I engaged ln translating Indian literature into Russian and. since 20Ig; she had been actively involvcd in voluntary seva activities with Sri Satya Sai prakashana, Muddenaha i including assisting in translation of Bhagavat Gita into Russian which necesSitated her to travel frequen tly to India, the peculiar circumstances prevailing rvorld wide i.e. Russia_Ukrain war; the fact that she has been disou,,ed bv her parents; cleath of her husband for u'hich she has ro perrorm monthly rituars and related ceremonies and that she is the only person to take care of the 2"d petitioner - mother_in-law, though this Court is not inclined to declare the action of thc respondents as illegal, in exercise ol the extraordinarv jurisdiction, is of the considered opinion that Petitioner No. I has miide out a case for grant of relief.

77. Accordingly, the Writ petition is allowed directing the 3'd responclent to srant extcnsion of petitioner No. l,s visa as per law on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Respondent No.3 is zrlso directecl not to impose any overstay penalty against her as shc had applied App'fication rvithin timc. No cosrs. for extension of Visa :---:: i j l I

, l5

18. any shall stand closcd

..I-tlg="P,A?iHts.[HlH Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, iI ,TTRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER To, #,s,,;*+$#il':il;;"'"-.#'#:::: [**fr ll'$iffi ]::,'":i#:"::: onecctosRl MADHuRurtAilil', sc FoR cEN one CC to Smt N V R' RA

J

toPucl

6. Two CD CoPies DAN/PMK

-I HIGH COURT DATED: 211041202G

ORDER

WP.No.7077 of 202G CC TODAY I I ; _:- {'i' \ \ "i . ii i .:,', i ,:. ,, ; - ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITTON WITHOUT COSTS a \ (_/ ^l\o