MHA Confirms No Indian Immigration Role in Nepali Travel Incident

(DELHI, INDIA) India’s Ministry of Home Affairs said Indian immigration authorities had no role in stopping a Nepali traveler from boarding a connecting flight to Germany at Indira Gandhi International Airport, stressing the decision rested entirely with the airline based on visa rules for the destination country. The ministry’s clarification followed reports that Shambhavi Adhikari, a Nepali citizen, was prevented from boarding a Qatar Airways flight to Berlin at Delhi IGIA and sent back to Kathmandu.

“It is to clarify that the Indian immigration authorities have no role to play in this entire episode,” stated the MHA.

Officials said Adhikari arrived in Delhi from Kathmandu on an Air India flight and was scheduled to connect on Qatar Airways to Berlin, but was stopped at the gate for the onward flight after the airline determined her visa did not meet Germany’s entry requirements. She was then returned to Kathmandu and later traveled to Germany via another route from there.

The ministry said the case was being incorrectly tied to Indian border or immigration procedures when, in fact, international transit passengers remain under airline control unless they seek to enter India.

“International transit passengers are not required to approach Indian Immigration for their onward journey and this is a matter between the airlines and the passenger with absolutely no role of Indian immigration authorities,” the MHA said,

adding that the airline made the call in line with its obligations to follow the destination country’s rules for entry.

The episode has drawn attention in Delhi and Kathmandu because it involves a Nepali national and occurred at one of the region’s busiest hubs, Delhi IGIA, where thousands of transit passengers connect each day. Airlines routinely verify travel documents before boarding to avoid fines and returns if a traveler is refused entry at the destination. In this case, the ministry said, the determination that Shambhavi Adhikari did not have a visa meeting Germany’s conditions was made by Qatar Airways staff at the gate, and not by any Indian official. The ministry’s statement sought to draw a clear line between transit control by carriers and formal immigration controls exercised by states when a person seeks to enter the country.

The ministry also addressed reports that framed the incident as discrimination against Nepali citizens.

“India values its strong relationship with Nepal and reassures that no Indian authority has any bias or discrimination against citizens of Nepal,” the statement said.

Officials pointed out that passengers who do not need to clear immigration in India do not interact with Indian immigration officers during transit, and that airlines alone decide whether a traveler can board the next flight based on checks of passports, visas, and any entry, transit, or health requirements set by the destination.

Adhikari’s travel path underscores how responsibilities are divided during international journeys with connections. She entered the transit area in Delhi after arriving from Kathmandu on an Air India flight and proceeded toward her onward gate for Qatar Airways, according to the ministry. There, Qatar Airways personnel reviewed her documents and concluded her visa did not meet Germany’s standards for entry. She was not taken to any Indian immigration desk, and no Indian immigration official questioned or processed her case, the ministry said. Instead, as often happens in such airline decisions, the carrier denied boarding and arranged for her return to her point of origin in Kathmandu.

Her case did not end at that point. The ministry said Shambhavi Adhikari rescheduled and later “successfully flew to Germany via another route from Kathmandu.” This suggests that once documentation met the destination’s requirements, her onward travel proceeded, though the ministry did not provide additional details on the route or carrier used. The central point, it said, is that the earlier denial stemmed from airline checks tied to German entry rules and not from any call by Indian officials at Delhi IGIA.

The MHA’s public remarks came after online debate and some media reports suggested Indian authorities had blocked a Nepali citizen in transit. The ministry countered that view by highlighting standard airline practices and stressing that international transit passengers at Indian airports

“are not required to approach Indian Immigration.”

The statement aimed to reassure both Nepali travelers and the broader international community that India’s immigration systems do not involve themselves in airline-led boarding decisions for onward flights where the passenger is not seeking to enter India. The ministry said these checks are governed by airline policies aligned with destination country regulations, such as those for Germany in this instance.

For Qatar Airways, like other carriers, verifying travel documents before boarding is an established practice to avoid situations where passengers are refused entry on arrival and must be flown back. Airlines typically examine visas, validity periods, and any country-specific conditions at the boarding gate for the final leg or a crucial segment of a trip. In Delhi, that responsibility rests with the carrier at the transit gate. The ministry said that is what happened in this case: the airline and the passenger discussed her documents, and the airline decided not to board her to Berlin. Because there was no attempt to enter India, immigration officials were never involved. Adhikari was subsequently sent back to Kathmandu on a return flight and later reached Germany after arranging a different route.

The ministry emphasized that nothing in the sequence of events supports claims of bias by Indian authorities. It said the case was handled within the normal routines of airline document checks at the gate and that India continues to facilitate smooth transit for international passengers who do not require entry into the country. In the same statement, the MHA reiterated India’s relationship with Nepal and described it as a factor in taking the unusual step of publicly clarifying the facts.

“India values its strong relationship with Nepal and reassures that no Indian authority has any bias or discrimination against citizens of Nepal,” the ministry said,

repeating the message to dispel doubts raised by earlier reports and social media posts.

Delhi IGIA, one of South Asia’s busiest airports, serves as a key transit point for travelers from Nepal and across the region connecting to Europe, the Middle East, and North America. The ministry’s statement implicitly explains how transit at such hubs is handled: carriers, including Qatar Airways, control access to onward flights and verify that every passenger has the right to enter the next country on the itinerary. If a carrier concludes the documents are not sufficient, standard practice is to deny boarding before the passenger flies to a place where they could be refused entry. That enforcement happens at the gate, and not at any immigration counter in the transit country.

The MHA’s clarification is also a reminder that a traveler can be denied boarding by an airline even when the first leg of the journey is complete, and even when the traveler never steps out of the international transit area. Airlines remain accountable for ensuring that each person they carry has the necessary permissions for entry. In this case, that responsibility was exercised by Qatar Airways in Delhi, according to the ministry, based on a review of Shambhavi Adhikari’s visa for Germany. While the ministry did not list the specific visa issue, it said the “visa validity did not meet the requirements for entry into Germany,” and therefore the airline declined to board her for Berlin.

India’s statement serves both as a factual correction and a broader assurance to Nepali nationals that they are not being targeted by Indian authorities when passing through Indian airports. The ministry’s choice to publish a clear and direct explanation, including the roles of each party—Air India for the inbound leg from Kathmandu, Qatar Airways for the onward flight to Berlin, and Indian immigration for entry cases only—appears aimed at avoiding misunderstandings in a case that quickly gained attention on both sides of the border. The MHA also highlighted that Adhikari’s later successful journey to Germany from Kathmandu confirms the issue lay with the initial airline decision tied to visa validity and not with any standing restriction related to her nationality or to India’s immigration controls.

Travelers and observers looking for official guidance on India’s immigration and transit policies can consult the Ministry of Home Affairs, which oversees immigration frameworks and public advisories. The ministry’s latest statement in this case anchors a simple message: transit passengers who do not seek to enter India are handled by their airlines under the rules of the destination country, and Indian immigration officers are not part of those gate decisions. In the incident involving Shambhavi Adhikari at Delhi IGIA, that distinction proved decisive, with the MHA stating plainly,

“It is to clarify that the Indian immigration authorities have no role to play in this entire episode,”

and that

“international transit passengers are not required to approach Indian Immigration for their onward journey.”

By closing with a reassurance about ties with Nepal and a clear denial of any discriminatory intent, the ministry hopes to tamp down concern and keep focus on the practical reality of international air travel: the final say at the gate belongs to the airline. In this case, that was Qatar Airways in Delhi, acting on Germany’s entry requirements, and not Indian immigration authorities. Adhikari returned to Kathmandu after the denial and, after rescheduling, completed her journey to Germany via another route, which the ministry said demonstrated that once documentation questions were resolved, her travel proceeded without further complication.