Bombay High Court

ALEKSANDRA KUZNETSOVA AND 2 ORSversusTHE UNION OF INDIA THR THE SECRETARY AND 4 ORS

Disposal: Dismissed

Holding

The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that there was no basis to interfere with the FRRO's rejection of the visa conversion and extension applications.

Summary

The petitioners, Russian nationals who entered India on tourist visas in October 2024, sought conversion and extension of their visas on humanitarian grounds after the war in Ukraine prevented their return. They applied to the UNHCR for asylum in Brazil, Ecuador, or Paraguay in June 2025, but their application remained pending. The FRRO rejected their visa conversion and extension applications, prompting the petitioners to file a writ petition challenging the FRRO's orders. The Court examined the petitioners' lack of proactive steps to secure refugee status or pursue asylum despite the pending UNHCR application and communications received in September 2026. Finding no sufficient cause to interfere with the FRRO's decision, the Court dismissed the petition, while noting that the petitioners may still seek refugee status through appropriate channels. Additionally, the Court ordered the transfer of a deposited amount to partially secure a penalty imposed by the FRRO.

Issues considered

Whether the FRRO's rejection of visa conversion and extension on humanitarian grounds is amenable to judicial review.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to remain in India pending the outcome of their UNHCR asylum application.
Whether the Court can intervene to grant relief in the absence of established refugee status.

Subjects

visa conversion
foreigners registration
humanitarian grounds
refugee status
UNHCR
FRRO
stay of foreign nationals
immigration law

Judgment

                                   906 WP 405 2026

   Meena

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
                    WRIT PETITION NO.405 OF 2026

ALEKSANDRA KUZNETSOVA AND 2 ORS                                     ... PETITIONERS
  Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA THR THE
SECRETARY AND 4 ORS                                                 ... RESPONDENTS


Mr. Ajay Menon, Advocate under the Legal Aid Scheme.
Mr. Raviraj Chodankar, Central Government Standing Counsel
(Through VC) for Respondent Nos. 1 and 5.
Mr. Suhas Parab, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4.


                         CORAM:- VALMIKI MENEZES &
                                 AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ.
                         DATED :- 30th September, 2026

P.C.:


1. The     Petitioners     challenge    orders            whereby     the   FRRO
(Respondent No.2) rejected their applications for visa conversion
and extension of Visa for stay in India on humanitarian grounds.
According to the Petitioners, they are Russian nationals and
entered India under tourist visas on 08.10.2024, which expired on
07.10.2025. She further claims that since she is unable to return to
Russia due to the war with Ukraine, she applied to the UNHCR on
27.06.2025 seeking asylum in Brazil, Ecuador, or Paraguay. In the
meantime, she continued to stay in India and applied for a
conversion of her tourist visa into an extension/X-Misc/LTV Visa,

                                       Page 1 of 3
                                   30th September, 2026
                                 906 WP 405 2026


which ultimately came to be rejected by the FRRO.


2. On perusing the record of the petition and the additional
affidavits filed by the Petitioner No.1 for herself and Petitioners
No. 2 and 3, who are her minor daughters aged 12 and 10 years, we
are of the opinion that no case has been made out for the
interference in the impugned orders for the following reasons:


While it is true that the Petitioners application before the UNHCR
was pending from 27.06.2025, we have taken note of the fact that
even though the petition has been pending before us from
November,2025, no steps have been taken by the Petitioners to
contact the UNHCR to establish their refugee status or to seek
asylum in the countries for which she applied for. It appears from
the records that she received a communication from UNHCR on
01.09.2026 and that she could seek asylum upon arrival in Brazil,
but none of these communications have conferred the Petitioners
with refugee status.


3. Considering the conduct of the Petitioner No.1, and the lack of
any steps being taken by her since November, 2025, we reject the
Petition. We leave it open to the authorities to take such steps as it
deems fit in the circumstances recorded by us in this case. We also
note that dismissal of the petition would not preclude the
Petitioners from even now seeking a declaration for refugee status

                                     Page 2 of 3
                                 30th September, 2026
                                                       906 WP 405 2026


                    and taking such steps as are available at law or before the
                    authorities of Union of India.


                    4. In the above circumstances, the petition stands dismissed.


                    5. The Registry of this Court is directed to transfer the amount of
                    Rs.25,000/- deposited on 15.07.2026 with the Registry of this
                    Court to partly secure the penalty amount imposed by the FRRO
                    for and on behalf of the Petitioners to FRRO, Goa. Details of the
                    accounts are as follows:


                                 Function Head - 0070601170100
                                 Account No.: 10314382194 (State Bank of India)




                      AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.                      VALMIKI MENEZES, J.




Signed by: MEENA VISHAL BHOIR
Designation: Private Secretary
                                                           Page 3 of 3
Date: 06/10/2026 11:40:31
                                                       30th September, 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…