Three couples have brought a case in the English High Court challenging English language requirements for spousal visas introduced in November 2010, on the grounds that they discriminate against British-Indian families and their traditions. The new rule, which came into effect in November 2010, requires all spouses to submit to a basic English language test before they can be granted residency in the UK. The rule applies to any spouse or civil partner, including prospective partners.
Manjit Gill QC is representing one the families in the proceedings, the Chaptis, and argues that the requirement breaches several articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. He says that the rule is discriminatory as it is bound to have a disproportionate affect on certain nationalities or racial groups, particularly those from the Middle East or the Indian subcontinent.
In a press release, UK's leading human rights organisation Liberty says it believes the English language requirements are "discriminatory and will break up genuine families ... Despite the rhetoric, we are concerned that [the UK] Government is more focused on looking tough on immigration than improving community integration."
The case is ongoing, however an article in The Economist comments that judgment may be delayed until October when the Supreme Court has delivered its decision in a related case, Aguilar Quila v Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is appealing a British woman's successful challenge of a 2008 rule-change which raised from 18 to 21 the minimum age for spousal visa sponsors and their non-European national spouses. Although the non-European national husband was 21, his British wife was only 17 and so his visa application was declined. The couple moved away from the UK until the wife was old enough to re-apply for the husband's spousal visa. At issue in both sets of spousal visa cases is whether and when it is legitimate to restrict an individual's rights in the public interest.