The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has issued a fresh directive to the Rajouri district administration, seeking a formal compliance report regarding the repatriation of a Pakistan-born teenager to his Indian father. The matter, which has been under legal scrutiny for several months, revolves around the administrative action taken against the minor following a security-related crackdown in the region last year.
The legal proceedings stem from a March 25 order issued by Justice MA Chowdhary, which was recently reiterated by a single-judge bench presided over by Justice Rahul Bharti. In its observations, the court underscored the necessity of reuniting the family based on "sacrosanct human values and rights." The bench drew parallels between the teenager's situation and the historical trauma of displacement, describing the case as an extension of the human suffering caused by the Partition.
The teenager, identified as Aasim Sajjad—also known as Fardin Sajjad—is the son of Sajjad Ahmed, a government schoolteacher based in Rajouri, and his late Pakistani wife, Shabnum Kouser. The couple married in Pakistan in December 2005, and Aasim was born in Gujranwala in November 2006. The family had previously resided in India under various visa arrangements since 2007, but complications arose following the death of the boy’s mother in 2013. Ahmed maintains that he made numerous efforts to secure Indian citizenship or extensions for his son on compassionate grounds, though these applications remained unresolved.
The central point of contention involves the deportation of the teenager on April 29, 2025. According to Ahmed, the J&K Police arrived at his residence, removed his son, and proceeded to deport him through the Wagah border without prior notification or the presentation of a formal deportation order. This action followed a government-wide directive that cancelled visas for Pakistani citizens in the wake of a terrorist attack on tourists in Pahalgam on April 22, 2025.
In response to the legal challenges, the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) argued that the father had not approached the court with "clean hands." Counsel for the FRRO maintained that the teenager was residing in India without a valid visa at the time of the deportation and was therefore legally obligated to leave the country. Furthermore, the FRRO stated that the Ministry of Home Affairs portal currently lists the status of the boy’s citizenship application as "not received yet.”
The court has firmly rejected the arguments presented by the Bureau of Immigration regarding the lack of an active visa as a sufficient justification for the separation. By seeking a status report, the judiciary is effectively holding the district administration accountable for the implementation of its earlier mandate to rectify the family's situation. The court’s persistence in this case highlights the ongoing tension between national security protocols and individual humanitarian concerns.
As the legal process continues, the administration in Rajouri is expected to file its response detailing the steps taken toward complying with the court’s order. This case remains a significant point of discussion regarding the intersection of administrative policy and the rights of families affected by broader geopolitical instability and security crackdowns in the union territory.
Comments