YouTube vlogger's wife moves Delhi HC challenging Centre's decision blacklisting him
New Delhi: YouTube vlogger Karl Edward Rice's wife has approached the Delhi High Court challenging the central government's alleged "arbitrary and unreasonable" decision to blacklist him and deny visa to enter India.
The petitioner said by virtue of denying visa to her husband, who has been "arbitrarily blacklisted" by the respondents (Centre), she is deprived from living with him, thereby violating her fundamental right to life and dignity as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The plea, which is likely to come up for hearing next week, said petitioner Manisha Malik and her husband, popularly known as Karl Rock, are YouTube vloggers and have visited most of India to capture its beauty and contribute to the promotion of tourism here.
It said the authorities have not communicated the grounds of blacklisting Rice even though several representations have been preferred by him and his wife, which has led to the separation of a married couple, lack of any opportunity or notice to them to indicate any violation of visa conditions and denial of issuance of visa to him.
Terming the Centre's move an arbitrary abuse of power, the plea said it violates the petitioner's rights under Article 19 (protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech) of the Constitution.
Union Home Ministry officials had on Friday said the New Zealand national has been restricted from entering India till the next year for violating terms and conditions of his visa.
He was found to be doing business activities on a tourist visa and also violating other visa conditions, they had said without specifying.
The plea said since their marriage in 2019, the couple has been living in Delhi and Rice has not been able to return to India from New Zealand since October 10 last year.
"The petitioner's husband, Karl Edward Rice, has a dual nationality New Zealand and Netherlands and has been visiting India since 2013 strictly abiding by the laws of the country and the conditions of visa.
"During the entire period since 2013, while the petitioner's husband has been granted Indian visa on various occasions, there hasn't been even a single allegation against the petitioner's husband," the plea, filed through advocate Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, said.
Subsequent to their marriage, Rice was granted an X-2 Visa (meant for spouse/children of an Indian citizen) which had a validity period of May 2019 to May 2024 and one of the conditions in the visa for him was to exit India every 180 days or to intimate the Foreigner Regional Registration Office concerned.
"Complying with the aforesaid condition of exiting the nation, while Rice left India on October 10, 2020, he has not been able to return to India because any application for issuance of an Indian visa is being rejected by the respondents.
"While the petitioner has been running from pillar to post and no reasons are communicated to either Karl Edward Rice or to the petitioner herself as to on what basis her husband's request for issuance of visa have been rejected," the petition said, adding that Rice was only verbally informed that he has been blacklisted and therefore he is not permitted to enter into India.
The plea sought direction to the authorities to call for records pertaining to cancellation of visa and unilateral blacklisting of Rice and also sought to review or quash the decision blacklisting him and allow him entry to India.
As an alternative, the plea sought to direct the authorities to grant a meaningful hearing to the couple on the sudden blacklisting of Rice.
The petition has arrayed Centre, through the Ministry of Home Affairs, FRRO and Bureau of Immigration as parties.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Quashing FIR of sexual assault, Delhi HC says some use provision to 'harass' men
New Delhi (PTI): The offence of rape is one of the most heinous crimes against women but some people use the legal provisions against it as a weapon to unnecessarily harass their male counterparts, the Delhi High Court has observed while quashing an FIR against a man.
The petitioner had moved the court, seeking to quash the FIR lodged against him for allegedly sexually assaulting a woman with whom he was earlier in a relationship. The high court noted that the FIR was nothing but an afterthought.
It said the recordings, WhatsApp chats and statements recorded before the magistrate clearly established that the ingredients of the offence of rape were not met as the man and the woman had consensually agreed to enter into a physical relationship, which was also not based on false promises of marriage.
"It is true that the provision under which the FIR has been lodged is one of the most heinous crimes against women. However, it is also an established fact that some people use it as a weapon to unnecessarily harass the male counterpart," Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said in a recent judgment.
The court said the case was a classic example of how an innocent person faced undue hardships due to the misuse of the penal provision and therefore, it was of the firm view that nothing would come out of the case if the matter was subjected to trial.
It observed that the courts were duty-bound to look into the possibility of the presence of an ulterior motive on the part of the prosecutrix to seek vengeance from the man.
The counsel for the man submitted that the petitioner and the complainant had been in a relationship earlier and had established physical relations with consent.
Due to some discord, the man and the complainant did not marry each other and later, a rape case was lodged against him, the counsel said.
However, the prosecutor opposed the quashing petition and said there were serious allegations against the petitioner and the complaint clearly establishes that he had sexually assaulted the woman.
Considering the material on record, the court noted that the woman was in constant touch with the petitioner and they both used to share details about their life on a daily basis and other personal details.
"It is not disputed by the petitioner that the parties had entered into a physical relationship, however, he claims the same to be consensual. It is also established from the statement recorded under section 164 of the CrPC of the prosecutrix that the parties had taken steps to get married, however, the families did not agree due to the caste factor," it noted.
The court further noted that despite the reservations from the man's family, he was ready to get married to the woman, but she did not show any interest later on and entered into a relationship with another person.
"The WhatsApp chats between the parties also show that the prosecutrix had sent several messages to the petitioner and conveyed information regarding her decision to get married to another person. Therefore, the instant FIR is nothing but an afterthought," it added.
