The Supreme Court of India recently dismissed the plea of a Sri Lankan Tamil refugee, emphasizing that India cannot become a "dharamshala" (rest house) for refugees from all over the world. The observation was made by a bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta, alongside Justice K Vinod Chandran, while addressing a petition challenging a Madras High Court order.
During the hearing, Justice Dipankar Datta remarked,
"Is India to host refugees from all over the world? We are struggling with 140 crore. This is not a Dharmshala that we can entertain foreign nationals from all over."
The case involved a Sri Lankan Tamil national who had been detained for almost three years without any formal deportation process. His counsel argued that he had entered India on a visa and now faced threats to his life if he returned to Sri Lanka. The counsel also highlighted that his wife and children were settled in India.
The Supreme Court maintained that there was no violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, as the petitioner's liberty had been taken away following legal procedures. The bench clarified that the right to settle in India under Article 19 is exclusively for Indian citizens.
Read Also: Supreme Court: All Retired High Court Judges Entitled to Full and Equal Pension Under 'One Rank One
The petitioner had a history of legal trouble. In 2015, he was arrested by the Q Branch on suspicion of being an LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) operative. In 2018, he was convicted under Section 10 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and sentenced to 10 years in prison. However, in 2022, the Madras High Court reduced his sentence to seven years, ordering his immediate deportation upon completion of the sentence. Until then, he was directed to remain in a refugee camp.
The petitioner argued that he had fought in the Sri Lankan civil war in 2009 as an LTTE member and was black-gazetted in Sri Lanka, making his return dangerous due to the risk of arrest and torture. He further mentioned his family's health conditions—his wife suffering from multiple ailments and his son with a congenital heart disease.
Read Also: Justice Abhay Oka’s Support Was Crucial During My Elevation: CJI BR Gavai
However, the Supreme Court firmly rejected his plea, with Justice Datta advising, "Go to some other country."
The petitioner was represented by Advocates R. Sudhakaran, S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, and Vairawan AS AOR.
