HC upholds ‘Leave India’ notice against US man; says tourist visa holders can’t conduct business

Bengaluru: The high court has upheld a ‘Leave India' notice issued to a United States national for violating visa conditions.A foreign national entering India on a tourist visa is bound by the restrictions attached to that visa and cannot, under the guise of subsequent arrangements, engage in business activities in violation of the law. Observing this, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum directed the petitioner to comply with the impugned notice and leave India forthwith, in accordance with the law, while dismissing the petition filed by American citizen Joseph Ignazzio Zambuto.The petitioner had challenged the notice dated Feb 19, 2026, which was issued under Section 7(2) of the Immigration and Foreigners Act-2025.According to the petitioner, he had been granted a business visa and, therefore, was entitled to remain in India until Jan 15, 2027, the date on which the visa is set to expire.He stated that he married a Mauritius citizen of Indian origin and had departed India on Jan 15, 2026. Subsequently, he re-entered the country on Jan 26, 2026, after obtaining a business visa valid until Jan 15, 2027. Since his re-entry, he claimed to be residing in Kadugodi, Bengaluru, and engaging in business-related activities, including meetings with stakeholders, with the stated objective of establishing a customer service centre in the city.His grievance is that the authorities erroneously stamped his visa as a tourist visa, and that the issuance of the ‘Leave India' notice infringes upon his legitimate expectations. He contends that the action not only affects his individual rights but also runs counter to India's broader economic and investment policies.On the other hand, additional solicitor general Aravind Kamath, along with Aditya Singh, central govt counsel, submitted that the petitioner had entered India on Aug 1, 2025, on an e-tourist visa and thereafter engaged in commercial operations. These included entering into contracts, employing personnel, and undertaking monetary transactions in connection with business activities carried out under the name and style of M/s Etta Global Partners LLC, a company stated to be registered in Puerto Rico, a territory of the United States, and having no registered office in India.They contended that these acts constitute a clear breach of visa conditions, which expressly prohibit engaging in any business, employment, or commercial activity while on an e-tourist visa. It was on account of these violations that the competent authority, in the exercise of its statutory powers, issued the impugned ‘Leave India' notice, strictly in accordance with the procedure established by law.Justice Magadum noted that the plea of legitimate expectation advanced by the petitioner is wholly misconceived, inasmuch as such expectation, if any, cannot override statutory restrictions or justify conduct in breach of visa conditions.The material on record indicates that, during the validity of the e-tourist visa, the petitioner engaged in activities that are impermissible under the visa regime. Documents show that he employed personnel, paid salaries, entered into contracts, and leased premises to carry on business operations—acts that fall outside the scope of an e-tourist visa and violate its conditions.Under Section 7(2) of the Immigration and Foreigners Act-2025, the competent authority is empowered to regulate a foreigner's stay in India and require departure in case of visa violations or unlawful stay. The court held that the issuance of the ‘Leave India' notice was in strict compliance with the Act and did not suffer from any arbitrariness, illegality, or procedural infirmity warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.