Last Updated on 1 year by AlexJames
India, which has long been struggling with a shortage of qualified labor, is battling to maintain its status as an attractive destination for international investors. As one way to address the skilled labor shortage, India implemented visa restrictions on foreign nationals. Also, anting to ensure that only those with work visas are allowed entry into the country. However, in this particular case, what seems like an easy fix on paper may be creating more problems than it’s solving.
What was the reason for the restriction on Indian Tourists?
In December 2012, the Indian government announced a temporary restriction on the number of foreign tourists to India. The restrictions are making in response to the increasing incidents of terrorist attacks in India and abroad. The restrictions were enacted to ensure the safety of Indian nationals and tourists. Also, know how to get an Indian eVisa Airport and Seaports for Entry?
The exact reason for the restriction is still unknown. But it is thought that it was implemented to prevent terrorist attacks against Indian nationals and tourists. It has been argued that the restrictions are also unfair. Because they make it difficult for people from other countries to visit India.
In place of the Inter-Governmental Authority for Development (IGAD) visa. The Indian government introduced a new scheme known as the Multiple Visa Unit (MVU) in July 2010. This scheme designe to increase inter-country relations between India and other countries by simplifying procedures and providing a single point of application for visas. The MVU encourages Indian diplomatic missions overseas to facilitate the process of issuing multiple-entry visas for Indians.
Who fill a petition challenging this policy?
On September 5, 2018, the Supreme Court of India accepted a petition filed by two sets of individuals. One comprising of students and entrepreneurs from the United States, and the other comprising of citizens from India. …
The petitioners argue that the visa ban discriminates against Indians and asks the court to review the policy on the ground. It violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. They also argue that this policy has stopped many Indian students and professionals from traveling to the United States for work or study. The petitioners point out that India is one of America’s key economic partners, with bilateral trade totaling $71 billion in 2017. Indian Visa Documents Required for verification.
The Indian government has argued that the visa ban is necessary for national security reasons. It has also said that it will review the policy if the court rules in favor of the petitioners.
What was the outcome of the result of their petition against India’s visa restriction?
The petitioners, a group of travelers from India, challenged the Indian government’s decision to ban citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries from traveling to India. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners and allowed them to travel to India. According to the latest official data published by the Ministry of Home Affairs. As of 2015, there are over two million register refugees in India.
What was the result of the petitioners’ claim for damages?
The Supreme Court gave a ruling in favor of the travel ban. Also, order that Indians cannot travel to those countries at this time. However, the court did order that there will no damages awarded to the petitioners or their families due to the travel ban; instead, they will give an official apology from India’s government.
Conclusion
The decision, which took effect last month. Who says it discriminates against religious and ethnic minorities. India argues that visa restrictions are necessary to protect its national security. Meanwhile, travel companies have warned that the ban could negatively impact tourism revenues. This is just one example of how international relations can complicate and fraught with tension. As always, it is important to stay aware of current events. Make sure you know your rights when it comes to interacting with foreign nationals.
