Court’s order to remove a Sri Lankan national from Indian territory immediately after serving his sentence was affirmed by the Apex Court.
The appeal was heard by a Division Bench made up of Justices Dipankar Datta and K Vinod Chandran. The petitioner requested humanitarian protection against deportation because his life was in danger in Sri Lanka and his life was based in India. The Bench, however, took a rigorous constitutional stance, pointing out that non-citizens’ fundamental rights are restricted.
“India Is Not a Dharamshala,” said Justice Datta.
Justice Datta made the following observation during oral arguments: “Is India to host refugees from all over the world? With a population of 140 crore, we are having difficulties. We cannot accommodate foreigners from all over the world in this dharamshala.
The Court believed that since the petitioner’s detention followed the proper legal procedures, there had been no breach of Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects life and personal liberty. Justice Datta went on to say that only Indian people have the fundamental right to live and settle in India, as guaranteed by Article 19.
The case’s background
- The petitioner, a Tamil national from Sri Lanka, and two others were detained by the Tamil Nadu Police’s Q Branch in 2015 on suspicion of having ties to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).
- In 2018, the petitioner was found guilty under Section 10 of the UAPA by the Trial Court and given a 10-year jail sentence.
- The Madras High Court lowered the sentence to seven years in prison in 2022, but mandated that the petitioner be transferred to a refugee camp until his deportation and that he leave India once his punishment was finished.
Petitioner’s Argument
- The petitioner said that he had a valid visa and had entered India legally.
- After his term was served, the petitioner was detained for three more years until the deportation process was completed.
- He informed the court that he has been placed on a blacklist in Sri Lanka due to his previous LTTE affiliation and fears detention and torture if repatriated.
- He also stated that his children, including a son with a congenital heart condition, and his ill wife, reside in India.
- Therefore, his attorney urged the court to consider his plea and allow him to remain in India on humanitarian grounds.
The Supreme Court’s Ruling
- The Court rejected the claim that prolonged incarceration without deportation justified permanent stay in India.
- The Bench emphasized the limited constitutional protections for foreign nationals under Indian law.
- Justice Datta responded bluntly to safety concerns in Sri Lanka by saying, “Then go to some other country,” showing no sympathy toward the petitioner.
Legal Importance of the Choice
- The case underscored that Article 21 applies to all persons, but it does not guarantee freedom from lawful imprisonment.
- Rights to reside and settle in India under Article 19(1)(e) and (g) are exclusive to Indian citizens.
- The Court ruled that refugee status or humanitarian grounds cannot override constitutional or legislative limitations on non-citizens’ rights.
You can follow our blog under Sharks of Law or on Instagram and YouTube for more information on the topic or to keep up with comparable legal news. You can get in touch with us using the details below if you are involved in a civil or criminal matter and would like to speak with a lawyer online or obtain free legal advice.
Email:-helpdesk@sharksoflaw.com
Help Desk:-+91-88770-01993
https://www.sharksoflaw.com/blog-detail/india-is-not-a-dharamshala-sc-refuses-relief-to-sri-lankan-tamil-under-uapa
