‘Why are you in India?': SC pulls up Israeli man in Goa, says country ‘a haven' for foreigners overstaying illegally

The Supreme Court on Monday criticised the increasing number of foreigners overstaying in India, dismissing the plea of an Israeli man seeking custody of his two minor daughters and expressing concern over long-term illegal residents, Bar and Bench reported.

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea filed by an Israeli national claiming to be the father of two minor girls born to a Russian woman recently found living in a cave in Karnataka's Gokarna

Why did the Supreme Court dismiss the Israeli father’s plea?

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi rejected the petition filed by Dror Shlomo Goldstein, who claimed to be the father of two minor girls, seeking to prevent their deportation to Russia. The court described the litigation as a “publicity interest” and “frivolous.”

“This country has become a haven for all kinds of people. Anybody comes and stays here endlessly,” the bench remarked during the hearing, questioning how Goldstein was sustaining himself in India.

“Why are you in India despite being Israeli? What is your source of livelihood? We do not want to comment on your activities but how are you surviving in Goa?” the court asked, as Goldstein’s lawyer sought an adjournment.

The bench ultimately allowed Goldstein to withdraw the plea, dismissing it as withdrawn, while challenging his claim of fatherhood and his lack of explanation for why the children were found living in a forest cave.

“If you are the father, what were you doing when your children were living in a cave? Why should we not order your deportation too?” the court asked.

What is the background of the case?

The controversy stems from July this year, when Nina Kutina, a 40-year-old Russian woman, and her two daughters, aged six and five, were rescued from a forest cave in Karnataka by local police. They had reportedly been living there for weeks without valid travel or residence documents.

The trio, along with Kutina’s minor son from another relationship found in Goa, were sent to a foreigners’ detention centre before being repatriated to Russia on 28 September.

Goldstein, residing in Goa, claimed he had provided for the welfare of the children. However, the courts found his explanation unconvincing, noting the unusual and precarious circumstances of the children’s living conditions.

What other overstaying foreigners has the Supreme Court addressed?

In a separate matter, the court considered a plea from Sudanese national Yousif Haroun Yagoub Mohamed, who sought protection from coercive action for allegedly overstaying.

“You know the MHA does not acknowledge the refugee card…Why don’t you move to Australia? You have already applied for asylum there,” the bench observed, noting India does not recognise UNHCR refugee cards.

The court stressed caution in entertaining such petitions, noting:

“Lakhs and lakhs are sitting here, overstaying,” highlighting the scale of the issue.

Mohamed’s plea was ultimately disposed of, as he had already approached the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).

Why is India facing scrutiny over illegal overstays?

India currently lacks a domestic refugee law and manages asylum and overstay issues through the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Passport (Entry into India) Rules, 1950.

Recent enforcement measures, particularly in Goa, Karnataka, and Delhi, have targeted long-term overstayers and foreigners engaged in unauthorised activities. On 2 May, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) issued a nationwide notification to identify and deport illegal immigrants. This notification is presently under judicial challenge.

The Supreme Court had earlier asked the Indian government to clarify its standard operating procedure while cautioning against discriminatory practices, especially concerning minority communities.