UPSC Prelims Practice Questions — Does a visa guarantee entry into India?

Q1. A foreign national lawfully present in India files a writ petition before a High Court. Consider the following fundamental rights: Which of the rights given above can such a person invoke?

  1. Equality of opportunity in matters of appointment to an office under the State
  2. Equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws
  3. Protection against discrimination by the State on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth
  4. Freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion
  • A. 2 and 4 only
  • B. 1, 2 and 4 only
  • C. 2 and 3 only
  • D. 2, 3 and 4 only

Q2. Consider the following statements: Which of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?

  1. In 2026, the Delhi High Court did not accept that refusing entry to one foreign national, while admitting another who held the same category of visa and travelled on the same flight, violated Article 14 of the Constitution.
  2. The guarantee of equality before the law under Article 14 extends to any person within the territory of India and is not confined to citizens.
  • A. Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II explains Statement-I
  • B. Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct, but Statement-II does not explain Statement-I
  • C. Statement-I is correct, but Statement-II is incorrect
  • D. Statement-I is incorrect, but Statement-II is correct

Q3. A foreign national obtains a tourist visa from an Indian mission abroad. When she lands at an Indian airport, the Immigration Officer refuses her entry on grounds of public health. Under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, which one of the following correctly describes the legal position?

  • A. Public health may justify deporting a foreigner already inside India but not refusing entry
  • B. The visa bound the officer to admit her unless the issuing mission had first cancelled it
  • C. The visa made her eligible to seek admission, which remained to be decided at the border
  • D. The refusal was lawful only if a court confirmed it within a reasonable time of her removal

Q4. A foreign national staying in India on a valid visa is taken into custody by the authorities while proceedings for removal are pending. Which one of the following correctly states the constitutional position?

  • A. He may be held without any procedure, as executive power over foreigners is unfettered
  • B. He may resist removal by invoking the freedom to reside and settle in any part of India
  • C. He has no fundamental rights at all, because Part III protects only the citizens of India
  • D. He may be deprived of personal liberty only according to a procedure established by law

Q5. Consider the following enactments: Which of the enactments given above were repealed by the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025?

  1. The Foreigners Act, 1946
  2. The Citizenship Act, 1955
  3. The Passports Act, 1967
  4. The Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939
  • A. 1, 2, 3 and 4
  • B. 1 and 4 only
  • C. 1, 2 and 4 only
  • D. 1, 3 and 4 only

Q6. Consider the following statements: Which of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?

  1. Even after the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act, 2000 remains in force as a separate statute governing carriers' duties.
  2. Under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, a foreigner who is refused entry is handed over to the carrier that brought him, and the carrier must ensure his removal from India without delay.
  • A. Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II explains Statement-I
  • B. Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct, but Statement-II does not explain Statement-I
  • C. Statement-I is correct, but Statement-II is incorrect
  • D. Statement-I is incorrect, but Statement-II is correct

Q7. With reference to refusal of entry to a foreigner under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, consider the following statements: Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. A foreigner may be refused entry on the ground of India's relations with a foreign State, even where no threat to national security is alleged.
  2. A foreigner who holds a valid visa may be refused entry on the ground of public health.
  3. The finding of inadmissibility is made at the port of entry by an Immigration Officer rather than by the mission abroad that issued the visa.
  • A. 1 and 2 only
  • B. 1 and 3 only
  • C. 2 and 3 only
  • D. 1, 2 and 3

Q8. Consider the following facts: The Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 declares the Immigration Officer's decision on a foreigner's inadmissibility to be 'final and binding'. In 2026, a foreign national who was refused entry without being given reasons filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. The court heard the case and dismissed it, holding that a valid visa confers no legally enforceable right to enter India. Which of the following inferences can be drawn from the above?

  1. Any foreign national refused entry in future will be barred from approaching a court against the refusal.
  2. A statutory 'final and binding' clause did not prevent a High Court from hearing a challenge to a refusal of entry.
  3. The High Court must have found that the immigration authorities had communicated adequate written reasons for the refusal.
  • A. 1 and 3 only
  • B. 2 only
  • C. 1 and 2 only
  • D. 2 and 3 only