In a significant ruling that clarifies the transition between old and new immigration laws in India, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a private house owner for failing to submit 'Form-C' regarding the stay of a foreign national.

The Court held that prosecution under the Foreigners Act, 1946 is legally unsustainable now that the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 has come into force. Justice Himanshu Joshi, presiding over the Indore Bench, termed the police action "ex-facie illegal" as it relied on a statute that had already been wiped off the books at the time of the alleged offence.

The matter reached the High Court through a writ petition filed by Mukhtiyar Ahmed Khan, a resident of Madhya Pradesh who had rented out his premises to a foreign national. Under the long-standing Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992, house owners are required to inform the authorities about the arrival and stay of foreigners by filing a document known as 'Form-C' within 24 hours.

The local police registered an FIR against Khan, alleging that he had delayed the submission of this form. However, the catch was in the timing: the FIR was registered after September 1, 2025—the date on which the old Foreigners Act of 1946 was officially repealed and replaced by the new 2025 regime.

The primary question before the Court was whether the state could prosecute a citizen under a law that no longer exists.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that once a parent statute (the 1946 Act) is repealed, all subordinate legislation—such as the 1992 Rules—automatically ceases to exist unless specifically "saved" by the new law. Since the alleged delay happened after the new Act took effect, applying the old rules was a violation of the fundamental right to "Article 20" of the Constitution, which states that no person shall be convicted of an offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the act.

Justice Himanshu Joshi analyzed the transition between the two Acts. The Court noted that the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 was enacted to modernize India's border and immigration management.

Key observations included:

Subordinate Legislation Dies with the Parent Act: The Court clarified that the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992, were born out of the 1946 Act. When the 1946 Act died on September 1, 2025, the 1992 Rules died with it.
The "Saving Clause" Limit: While most new laws have a "Saving Clause" to continue old trials that started before the change, they do not authorize the police to start fresh cases under the old law for things that happened after the repeal.
No Prosecution without Authority: The Court held that penal consequences (punishments or fines) must flow strictly from the law that is active on the date of the omission.

Terming the registration of the offence as "without authority of law," the High Court quashed the FIR and all subsequent legal proceedings against the house owner.

"Neither the Act of 1946 nor the Rules of 1992 could be invoked for acts occurring after September 1, 2025," the Court observed.

However, the Court did grant liberty to the authorities to proceed against the petitioner if his actions violated the new Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, provided they follow the procedures laid down in the new regime.

This judgment serves as a vital reminder to law enforcement agencies across the country. As India transitions from colonial-era laws to modern statutes, the police cannot continue to use old sections out of habit. For citizens and house owners, it reinforces the protection that they cannot be harassed under "dead" laws.

Case Details:

Case Title: Mukhtiyar Ahmed Khan vs. Union of India and Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 48763 of 2025
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench)
Judge: Justice Himanshu Joshi