Change to tourist visa rules re multiple entries - 60-day-out rule scrapped

A friend of mine on a long term tourist visa recently popped down to Sri Lanka to refresh the 6-month (180 days) stay/visit limit associated with her Indian tourist visa. As she prepared to depart Bangalore for Sri Lanka, she was officially advised that she would be allowed to return to India immediately this time, but not in the future. New rules are in place requiring at least two months outside of India before returning. In other words, two months is now the minimum time between visits; no more visa runs.

Upon returning to India, she advised another friend and long-term expat about the problem she had encountered. He contacted the American Consulate in Chennai, which was completely unaware of the new rule. They advised him to call back in an hour and a half while they investigated. When he called back they said that they had confirmed (I assume with the Ministry of Home Affairs) that there was indeed a new two month minimum between visits.

Has anyone heard anything about this or come across an announcement?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~

Forum Advisor Note: I have moved discussions about the reasons for this policy, and its possible repercussions on the tourist industry etc into another thread, to keep this one on topic for information and advice about the new policy.

Two month rule - Thread for reasons / repercussions / rants about new policy


Forum Advisor Note: RandyP, as the useful links you have so helpfully posted to this thread have become lost in the sheer number of posts, I'm taking the liberty of adding them and several others to the end of this first post, for ease of reference.

Ministry of Home Affairs Tourist Visa FAQ Clarifying new rules UPDATED 16/06/2010 (despite file name suggesting otherwise)
Instructions For Foreigners Coming To India - how to register
British VFS website Details of new rule and Re-entry Request Form
American Travisa website Guidelines for new rule and Re-entry Permission Form

I have no time to check right now, but I believe that it was the Australian website which one of our members reported having a notice about this.

This is the first time that I have heard of it, but I don't think anyone will be surprised*. I can see it being a boost for the Nepalese tourist industry!

I wonder how they knew she was planning to return?




*There'll be plenty of peopel to moan about it, though, I'm sure

There's been talk for longer of people having to wait for a while before applying for a new tourist visa yes (and then preferably in one's home country, according to some of such stories).

For those who hadn't caught the news yet over these past not-so-few years: It would seem the visa run is best considered a thing of the past for all practical intents and purposes, folks. One can still try it, and people meeting with varying degrees of success still seem to report so; but it would seem ill-advised to count on it working out for you.

(Nor does it seem very fruitful to try and pinpoint what nationalities may have the best chance of success, and getting a tourist visa of which duration, applying in what country. Those stories are far too random for it, and it seems to be mostly a matter of luck if anything. Embassy personnel -- let alone whatever their websites care to mention and when any webbie last looked at them -- then may or may not be up-to-speed on such directives, or may otherwise be unwilling to discuss it, so they're not necessarily much to go by either.)

Thanks, Haylo! The Australian site did indeed have an announcement, which was dated November 26.

These new rules appear to apply to people who have long term Indian tourist visas, who have left India briefly in order to start another 180 day visit, not only people who are applying for completely new visas.

<cross-posting with Haylo. Indeed, that would seem to be something new, and certainly a reason for concern to those holding such visas. Sigh, that probably means you can look forward to another decade or so of confusion on the matter, with no one really knowing the answer either.>

ps Although on rereading,

(Emphasis mine) If so, that would have to be a novelty indeed. I've not heard of those few nationalities lucky enough to get extended tourist visas (yet requiring one to leave every 180 days, which should then be a mere formality) running into trouble with it no, and there technically should be no reason for it. (Although once these policies truly become established and universal, it wouldn't seem impossible they'd be extended to include them. It would seem to defeat the very purpose of such visas though, so why grant them at all. Which could then well signal some transitional phase however.)

The matter may be complicated because again embassy personnel themselves may not be sure either, or of the precise implementation of such policies (if indeed they care to discuss it with you at all). So there would seem to be a lot of room for arbitrariness there, which is probably precisely why one hears so many conflicting stories on it. (If you want to know the rules, what my Dutch visa services, and as such working independently of the Indian embassy, at least have told me is -- and that an official directive to that effect has been issued to all such services and Indian embassies abroad what was it, a year or two ago -- back-to-back visas are technically no longer to be granted no, period, and in fact (and of course, one might think) they never were. And that applying for an Indian tourist visa in a country other than one's own should be difficult to say the least.

That's not necessarily what people report on the ground; but it's the closest thing to an official answer on the matter I've ever received. (So why was I even asking them? It doesn't concern me, but I figured given the constant concerns about it it might be nice to make some calls. This is about as far as I got, and you may indeed find the closer to the source you get, the less inclined the officials in question may be to just answer some simple yes-or-no queries on the matter.)

Long term (eg 10 year) tourist visas have never been granted with the intention that people can live in India long term, leaving only briefly once every 180 days; frankly that is taking the piss!

Why grant them at all? Because these long term visas are issued for the convenience of tourists who wish to make repeated visits to India, and as such they are still a valuable asset.

<cross-posting again. Yes, I would have to agree Haylo; maybe it's time people finally realize they have no moral grounds to stand on whatsoever. A tourist visa by nature means it was meant for tourist purposes, folks, not to consider yourself some quasi-permanent resident. And please remember a visa, to any country, is always granted, never a right. It doesn't matter what you or I may think of it.)>

ps I had a look at the Australian embassy website but see no swift mention of this no. Which, come to think of it, would have been surprising, since Australians as far as I know are not eligible for such extended visas.

btw Another thing I always find amusing is people openly discussing their wishes to use the visa run and/or these extended visas for purposes they weren't quite meant for on forums like these. You think no embassy or appropriate state personnel reads along here? Maybe it has in fact helped to inspire them to get busy on such loopholes? Hmm, let's see, mid-90's, the world wide web takes a big leap. Early 2000's, the Indian govt. starts clamping down on the whole visa run shebang. Whadda koinkidenk indeed.

Anyway those are all general reflections; I would still empathize with the original poster's friend, and the unexpected position they may now find themselves in.

And then another of those ps's,

Yes; inasmuch as the gist of some of these discussions seems to be the Indian government had some nefarious intent to make life miserable on all us foreigners btw, no few people report their actually being suggested by embassies themselves to apply for an extended visa precisely because they visit often (the implication then apparently being you may sooner be eligible for it if you do). Go figure.

Someone with no previous history of visiting India, who is applying for a long term visa, is likely to be be seen as far more of a risk of abusing the terms of that long term visa, than someone whose passport shows evidence of previously using short term visas to take genuine holidays in India, and returning home to their everyday life for long periods in between.

Exactly. So when will you be around here so I can offer you a beer (tea, whatever)? You'd be most welcome

Totally off topic, but next time I'm in your country, you're on - mine's a pint!

Not going anywhere for at least a month or two though (well, unless I get itchy feet yet again...) as I've only just got back from a fantastic month long trip to Iran.

All visa applications have to go through VFS, it's on their "Important Notices" link here: http://www.vfs-in-au.net/notices.aspx

The part that confuses me is where it says that for visits within a 2 month period, special permission of the mission / post would be required - I'm not sure what form this "permission" would be, that would be recognised and accepted by an immigration officer on entering India.