Supreme Court Restores Interim Protection to British Citizen Residing in India Since Childhood, Directs Expeditious Hearing by MP High Court.


15 October 2025 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law   |   Interim Application >> Civil & Consumer Law  

The Supreme Court of India has reinstated an interim stay order in the case of a British national, Mahima Anjali Singer, who has grown up in India, after the Madhya Pradesh High Court revoked the stay for non-appearance of counsel. The top court ordered that the protection provided to her earlier against deportation will remain in force until her writ petition is heard on merits.

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi pronounced the order on October 15, 2025, admitting the appeal based on the High Court's order dated October 8, 2025. The intervention by the Court guarantees that the appellant remains safeguarded from immediate deportation pending her substantive challenge to a "Leave India" notice.


 

 

The appellant, born in Buckinghamshire (UK) on November 30, 1993, is a British national by birth, but her mother is an Indian citizen. After the parents’ marriage in 1992, the mother and child settled in Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, in 1995. Since then, the appellant has lived in India on long-term visas that were renewed periodically.

In January 2021, Foreigners Regional Registration Office served a "Leave India" notice on her within seven days. She moved the order in advance before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 1091 of 2021, for which she originally secured an interim stay on January 20, 2021. Later, in October 2025, the High Court revoked the said stay as no attorney came to pursue the case when it was called for hearing.

The Supreme Court observed that in the normal course, notice would have been given to the Union of India and the State before any interim direction could be passed. But to prevent undue hardship, and as continuation of stay won't prejudice the authorities, the bench exercised its equitable jurisdiction to revive the previous protection subject to final hearing of the writ petition.

The Court clarified that the reinstated interim protection would exist only up to the time when the counsel of the appellant appears and fully cooperates in the High Court proceedings. The judges also asked the High Court to dispose of the writ petition at the earliest, ideally within four months. Simultaneously, the Court stressed that maintenance of the interim relief shall not be interpreted as making any view on the merits of the case of the appellant.

By reinstating the interim protection, the Supreme Court emphasized that procedural default or lack of counsel on a particular date should not necessarily deny a litigant substantive relief, particularly in cases concerning personal liberty and residence. The order also emphasizes the Court's responsiveness to cases concerning long-term foreign residents who have strong roots in India, without conceding the final determination to the High Court on merits.