NRIs and Foreigners

Non-Resident Indians [NRIs] & Foreigners

An Indian abroad is known as Non-Resident Indian (NRI). The NRI status is legally defined under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and the Income Tax Act, 1961 [FEMA]. We, at Hello Counsel are Child Adoption Experts in India. NRI Marriage in India is our expertise. Our Lawyers are one of top Immigration Law Experts in India. We are Matrimonial Law Experts and have on our panel the lawyers who are NRI Divorce Experts, NRI DV Act Experts, NRI Child Custody Experts, NRI Family Property & Business Partition Experts, and Foreign Trade & Investment Experts. We specialize in FEMA,1999, Income Tax, Wealth Tax.

Bare Acts, Rules & Notifications- NRI & Foreigners

  • Citizenship Act, 1955.
  • Citizens (Registration at Indian Consulate) Rules, 1956.
  • Extradition Act, 1962. 
  • Foreigners Act, 1946.
  • Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA).
  • Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950
  • Immigration (Carriers’ liability) Act, 2000
  • Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983
  • Passport Act, 1967.
  • Passport (Entry into India) Act 1920
  • Passport (Entry into India) Rules, 1950
  • PIO Card Scheme, 2002.
  • Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992
  • Visa Manuals (Confidential, and not for public consumption);

Courts & fora- NRI & Foreigners- In India

  • Bureau of Immigration– Headed by Commissioner of Immigration and assisted by FRROs
  • Foreigners Regional Registration Officers (FRROs)/ Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Amritsar, Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Calicut, Kochi, Trivandrum, Lucknow And Ahmedabad;
  • Foreigners Registration Officers (FROs): The concerned District Superintendents of Police are ex-officio FROs;
  • District Superintendent Of Police (SP)/ Prescribed Authority;  
  • Immigration Officers: At the Immigration services at the major International Airports in India;
  • Immigration & Checkpoints Authority (ICA) Officers; 
  • Indian Visa Application Center (IVAC);
  • Chief Immigration Officers (CIOs)/ District Superintendent Of Police (SP)/ Prescribed Authority;
  • Goa, Jaipur, Gaya, Varanasi, Nagpur, Pune, Mangalore, Trichy, Coimbatore, Bagdogra, Chandigarh And Guwahati;
  • Immigration, Visa Foreigners’ Registration And Tracking (IVFRT)- Under MHA/Boi;
  • National Informatics Center(NIC);
  • Immigration Check Posts  (ICPS);
  • Bureau of Immigration (BoI);
  • Commissioner of Immigration; Commissioner, BoI;
  • the 12 FRROs; the 86 Immigration Check Posts (ICPs);
  • the 37 ICPs; 
  • the 12 Chief Immigration Officers;
  • the District Superintendent of Police (SP);  
  • the Prescribed Authority functions as FRO;
  • Immigration, Visa Foreigners’ Registration and Tracking (IVFRT) under MHA/BoI;
  • National Informatics Center (NIC);  
  • Indian Missions; Immigration Check Posts (ICPs);
  • FRRO/FRO offices.

Courts & fora- NRI & Foreigners- Overseas

  • International Organization for Migration.
  • United Nations Convention on Law of Sea, 1982
  • United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Courts & fora- NRI & Foreigners- Singapore.

  • Singapore- High Commission Of The Republic of Singapore– At: E-6, Chandragupta Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi, Delhi 110021, Tel- +91 (11) 46000800 & 91 (11) 46000915 (Visa and Consular); Fax: +91 (11) 4601 6413 (General); +91 (11) 4601 6412 (Visa); +91 (11) 3042 0393;; Operational Hours: Mon-Fri- 9.00 am to 1.00 pm- 1.30 pm to 5.00 pm- Saturday and Sunday – Closed- Authorized Visa Agents [As On 01st January, 2018].

Courts & Fora- NRI & Foreigners- USA

  • Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)- Of USA
  • Customs and Border Protection (CBP)- Of USA
  • Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)- Of USA
  • U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)- Of USA- CBP, ICE & USCIS are part of the Department of Homeland Security.

Judgments & Citations: Immigration Law In India

  • Sarbananda Sonowal Versus Union of India, WP(C) No.117/2006, Judgment Dated- 05/12/2006, Bench: S.B. Sinha, J.: P.K. Balasubramanyan, J., Supreme Court Of India- 2006(Supp-10) SCR 167: 2007(1) SCC 174: 2006(13) SCALE 33: 2007(1) SLT 648.- Foreigners (Tribunal) Amendment Order, 2006- Amendment of Order of 1964- Violative of Articles 355 & 14 of Constitution- No rational reason has been put forward to justify such a separate treatment for Assam especially in context of report of the then Governor of Assam and earlier decision of this court- Therefore amendment to 1964 order has to be held to be violative of Article 355 and Article 14 of Constitution- Further if the order 1964 is found invalid, there is no question of Order, 2006 being promulgated to replace the 1964 order- Amendment Order 2006 and Assam Order, 2006 to be quashed- Direction to respondent to implement the direction of this court in its earlier decision in Sonowel-1, 2005(5) SCC 665- Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983- Citizenship Act, 1955- Section 6-A(3)- Foreigners Act, 1946- Section 3- Foreigners (Tribunal) for Assam Order, 2006- Foreigners (Tribunal) Order, 1964- Constitution of India- Articles 355 & 14.- HELD: Nothing was also shown at the time of arguments to persuade us to come to a conclusion that the 1964 Order worked harshly on anyone who was sought to be proceeded against under the Foreigners Act and under that Order. The present exercise is therefore seen to be not a commendable attempt to evade the directions issued by this Court in the earlier round. That too, by way of subordinate legislation. Though, we would normally desist from commenting, when the security of the nation is the issue as highlighted in Sonowal I, we have to say that the bona fides of the action leaves something to be desired. Although bona fides on the part of authority vested with power to make delegated legislation ordinarily is not a relevant factor, the question is whether the manner in which it is sought to be done is sufficient in law to get rid of the judgment of this Court in Sonowal I. After thus removing the 1964 Order from the scene, the new Order of 2006 has been issued. Here also, except the reason already set out, no particular reason is given for making a departure from the existing procedure.- We shall first consider the validity of the amendment to the 1964 Order by notification No. GSR 57 (E) dated New Delhi, the 10th February 2006 so as to make it inapplicable to the State of Assam in the context of prayer (A) in W.P. (C) No. 119 of 2006. It has already been held in Sonowal I that the special treatment sought to be meted out to Assam is not justified and the extending of a special Act to that territory alone is discriminatory. The same reasoning applies on all fours to the removing of the 1964 Order from the scene. Such removal or such making of the Order of 1964 inoperative to the State of Assam alone is discriminatory and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.- The Foreigners Tribunal, it is said, has not been set up in any other part of India except the State of Assam. A different regime, therefore, exists in Assam from the rest of the country. If no tribunal has been established in the rest of the country, foreigners are identified by the executive machinery of the State. Thus, the province of Assam only has been singled out for adopting a different procedure. The problem in regard to illegal migration faced by Assam is also faced by other States including the States of West Bengal, Tripura, etc. It is, therefore, not in dispute that two different procedures have been laid down by the Central Government by issuing two different notifications on the same day.- We may notice that this Court categorically opined that the procedure under the 1946 Act and the Rules were just and fair and did not offend any constitutional provision, while issuing a direction that the Tribunals under the IMDT Act would not function and the matter should be adjudicated upon in terms of the provisions of the 1946 Act and the Rules thereunder. By reason of the impugned Order the Central government has created tribunals only for Assam and for no other part of the country.- For the aforementioned reasons also, in our opinion, the impugned subordinate legislation cannot be sustained as it does not stand the test of the reasoning in Sonowal I.­- In the face of the clear directions issued in Sonowal I, it was for the Authority concerned to strength the Tribunals under the 1964 Order and to make them work. Instead of doing so, the 2006 Order has been promulgated. It is not as if the respondents have found the 1964 Order unworkable in the State of Assam; they have simply refused to enforce that Order in spite of directions in that behalf by this Court. It is not for us to speculate on the reasons for this attitude. The earlier decision in Sonowal, has referred to the relevant materials showing that such uncontrolled immigration into the North-Eastern States posed a threat to the integrity of the nation. What was therefore called for was a strict implementation of the directions of this Court earlier issued in Sonowal I, so as to ensure that illegal immigrants are sent out of the country, while in spite of lapse of time, the Tribunals under the 1964 Order had not been strengthened as directed in Sonowal I. Why it was not so done, has not been made clear by the Central Government. We have to once again lament with Sonowal I that there is a lack of will in the matter of ensuring that illegal immigrants are sent out of the country.- It appears that the 2006 Order has been issued just as a cover up for non-implementation of the directions of this Court issued in Sonowal I. The Order of 2006, in our view, is clearly unnecessary in the light of the 1946 Act and the Orders made thereunder and the directions issued in Sonowal I. It does not serve the purpose sought to be achieved by the 1946 Act or the Citizenship Act and the obligations cast on the Central Government to protect the nation in terms of Article 355 of the Constitution of India highlighted in Sonowal. We have also earlier struck down the repeal of the 1964 Order as regards Assam. The 2006 Order is therefore found to be unreasonable and issued in an arbitrary exercise of power. It requires to be quashed or declared invalid.- We therefore allow these Writ Petitions and quash the 2006 order and the Foreigners (Tribunal) Amendment Order 2006 and direct the respondents to forthwith implement the directions issued by this Court in Sonowal.

Important Govt. Links

  1. Bureau of Immigration (BoI):  
  2. Foreign Affairs- External Affairs- Bare Acts-,_Legislations__amp;_Rules
  3. Foreigners’ Division: Ministry Of Home Affairs:       
  4. Foreigners Division Ministry of Home Affairs Government of India-

Kindly CLICK HERE, call our helpline at (+91) 98-712-712-05, or e-mail us at if you wish to talk to a lawyer or are facing any other Legal Issue and want to have Legal Consultations with the empaneled Lawyers at Hello Counsel.

Need A Lawyer? We Can Get You One.

Fill This Form If You Wish To Hire A Lawyer
Know More

Find A Lawyer

Fill This Form If You Wish To Retain A Lawyer
Know More

Retain A Lawyer

Like us? Leave us a review.