Foreigners face wider blacklist criteria as India adds cybercrime, crypto rackets, terror funding

India has widened the grounds for blacklisting foreign nationals, with updated immigration and blacklisting guidelines bringing a broader range of offences and activities within the framework for denying foreigners entry or stay in the country.

The revised framework specifically covers cybercrime, child abuse, child trafficking, cryptocurrency-related racketeering, terrorism-linked financial support, money laundering and hawala, alongside existing grounds such as espionage, terrorism, subversive activities, narcotics trafficking, human trafficking, forged documents and other serious offences.

New grounds expand scope of blacklist rules

Top-level sources confirmed that the guidelines were prepared and issued when US national Matthew VanDyke and six Ukrainian nationals were in jail in India following their arrest by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in March 2026 in a case involving the alleged training of Myanmar-based ethnic armed groups in drone warfare.

The NIA initially invoked anti-terror provisions. Its subsequent chargesheet invoked Sections 21 and 23 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, while the UAPA investigation remained open. The agency has also faced criticism over the dropping of charges against some of the accused.

The updated framework marks a significant expansion from the earlier system. While foreign nationals could already be blacklisted for serious offences, immigration violations, forged documents, security-related activities and other specified conduct, the newer framework expressly covers cybercrime, child abuse, child trafficking, cryptocurrency-related racketeering, terrorism-linked financial support, money laundering and hawala.

The significance of the updated framework lies in the fact that India is no longer relying only on conventional immigration violations or serious criminal convictions. The new guidelines expressly identify digital crime, child abuse, cryptocurrency-related racketeering and financial channels such as hawala and money laundering connected to terrorism or subversive activity as grounds relevant to restricting the entry or stay of foreign nationals.

An order prepared last year specifically provides grounds for refusing entry or stay to foreigners involved in anti-national activities, espionage, terrorism and subversive activity, narcotics trafficking, human trafficking, fake travel documents and currency racketeering, including cryptocurrency, as well as cybercrime and child abuse.

The latest consolidated guidelines also expressly cover terrorist or subversive activity involving the provision of financial support, money laundering or hawala. Human trafficking has also been specifically expanded to include child trafficking.

The Immigration and Foreigners Order, 2025 similarly provides for refusal of entry or stay to foreigners convicted of or found involved in anti-national activities, espionage, rape, murder, crimes against humanity, terrorist and subversive activities, including arranging financial support, money laundering or hawala for such activities, as well as narcotics trafficking, human trafficking including child trafficking, fake travel document and currency racketeering, including cryptocurrency, cybercrime and child abuse.

Four grades determine blacklisting action

The updated system retains the Grade A, B, C and D structure for blacklisting, with different levels of violations attracting different categories.

Grade A covers the most serious cases, including foreigners convicted of or found involved in serious security and criminal offences, those considered dangerous from a security perspective, members of organisations declared unlawful under the UAPA, persons covered by UN blacklisting requirements, and specified cases involving forged or fraudulently obtained travel documents or visas. Recent court records continue to refer to Grade A as the highest category under the extant MHA blacklisting guidelines.

Grade B covers foreigners convicted of or found involved in offences under Indian law punishable with imprisonment of less than three years, excluding offences under the Immigration and Foreigners Act. It also covers repeat violations of the Immigration and Foreigners Act and its rules, orders and directions.

The category includes specified visa violations involving nationals of Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan, subject to the stated exception for six minority communities, as well as cases involving FEMA violations, other financial irregularities, illegal funding and tax evasion.

In exceptional cases involving foreigners who threaten, abuse or misbehave with immigration officials or obstruct the immigration process, blacklisting action can be taken. Such action is to be taken only in rare cases, on the basis of clear documentary evidence and with prior approval of the Commissioner, Bureau of Immigration.

Grade D covers specified lower-level cases, including certain overstays or non-registration of up to 90 days involving nationals of Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan, subject to the same stated exception for six minority communities, as well as other minor offences under Indian law.

The guidelines also specify that foreign minors up to seven years of age will not be blacklisted.

MHA and immigration authorities have different approval powers

The framework sets different levels of approval for blacklisting. Grade A decisions can be taken by an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs or by the Commissioner, Bureau of Immigration.

The 2025 immigration regime also requires the Bureau of Immigration to maintain an updated list of foreigners whose entry is prohibited and provides for periodic review of such cases. The Ministry of Home Affairs has separately published the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, the Immigration and Foreigners Rules, 2025 and the Immigration and Foreigners Order, 2025 as part of the new foreigners regime.

The framework has also featured in recent judicial proceedings. In February 2026, the Delhi High Court was told that foreigners who used forged or fraudulently obtained travel documents, including for obtaining an Indian visa, or were found to have violated visa conditions could fall under Grade A. The court record described the highest category as permanent in nature, while noting that a person could seek review after 10 years.

VanDyke case puts renewed focus on foreigner rules

The VanDyke case has brought renewed attention to how India's immigration and security machinery deals with foreign nationals whose activities allegedly extend beyond the terms of their visas.

VanDyke and the six Ukrainians were arrested on March 13, 2026. The six Ukrainians were detained at airports in Delhi and Lucknow, while VanDyke was arrested at Kolkata airport.

The NIA alleged that the group travelled to Myanmar and provided training in weapons and drone operations to ethnic armed groups. The agency also told a Delhi court that it was investigating allegations linking the group to a drone attack on a civilian aircraft in Myanmar.

In its chargesheet filed on September 8, the NIA invoked Sections 21 and 23 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, rather than the UAPA provisions under which VanDyke had initially been arrested. The agency told the court that its investigation into possible UAPA offences remained pending and that a supplementary chargesheet could follow.

In September, a Delhi court granted default bail to VanDyke after holding that the investigation had not been completed within the statutory period. The court also indicated that the six Ukrainian nationals were entitled to similar relief.

The six Ukrainians subsequently received default bail as well. The court discharged them under Sections 21 and 23 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act after the offences were compounded by the Foreigners Regional Registration Office, which had imposed a fine of ₹5.5 lakh on each of them.

A Delhi court later allowed all seven, including VanDyke, to travel to the US and Ukraine for one month, after their passports were released. The development came after the NIA had charged them only under immigration provisions while keeping the UAPA investigation open.

The developments do not conclude the NIA's investigation into the allegations against the seven foreign nationals. The agency has maintained that further investigation was required to ascertain the complete facts concerning possible offences under the UAPA.