The Bombay High Court has strongly criticised the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) for defying a court order by blocking a US national's exit permit, highlighting concerns over judicial authority and the rights of foreign citizens facing legal proceedings in India.
The Bombay High Court has censured the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) for not processing the 'exit permit' of a US national, booked for allegedly attempting religious conversion, despite a sessions court order.
Justice N J Jamadar, in the order passed on Tuesday, said a government agency can not "dilute" or nullify the effect of a court order through indirect means, and directed the FRRO to process the petitioner's application immediately.
An exit permit is an official permission granted to a foreign national to leave India in the absence of a valid visa.
The FRRO was "not at all justified" in refusing to process the application on an objection raised by the probe agency, the HC said.
Petitioner James Watson was booked by Thane police for allegedly attempting religious conversion, and faced charges under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and Other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2013, and the Foreigners Act, 1946.
The American national was granted bail by the Additional Sessions Court at Bhiwandi in Thane district in October 2025. On February 27, 2026, the Sessions Judge granted him permission to travel to the United States from March 9 to April 18, 2026, to attend to his mother, who is battling stage II breast cancer.
Despite the sessions court granting him permission to travel to the US, the FRRO refused to process the exit permit. He then moved the HC.
Justice Jamdar said such a course of action "cannot be countenanced."
"A judicial order of a competent court cannot be denuded of its meaning and content in an indirect manner. Till the order permitting the applicant to travel abroad is in force, it commands obedience by the authorities," the HC said, adding that "the binding efficacy and force of the order cannot be permitted to be diluted or otherwise defeated."
If the investigating agency was aggrieved by the order passed by the sessions judge, it should have approached the appropriate court, the judge said.