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 other people 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 it also mandated that the petitioner be transferred to a refugee camp until his deportation and that he leave India as soon as his punishment is finished.
Petitioner’s Argument:
• The petitioner said that he had a valid visa and had entered India.
• After his term was served, the petitioner was detained for three more years until the deportation process was finished.
• The petitioner informed the court that he has been placed on a blacklist in Sri Lanka because of his previous LTTE affiliation and that he fears being detained and subjected to torture upon repatriation.
• The petitioner informed the court that his children, including a boy who has a congenital heart condition, and his wife, who is ill, reside in India.
Therefore, the petitioner’s attorney urged the court to take his plea into consideration and permit him to remain in India on humanitarian grounds.
The Supreme Court’s ruling
• The Apex Court rejected the claim that the petitioner’s extended incarceration without deportation was a legitimate justification for granting him a permanent stay in the nation. However, the argument emphasized the limited constitutional protections that Indian law affords foreign nationals.
• When the petitioner’s attorney expressed concerns about the petitioner’s safety in Sri Lanka, Justice Datta retorted bluntly, “Then go to some other country.” The Bench generally showed no sympathy for the petitioner’s allegations.
Legal Importance of the Choice:
• The case has brought to light several constitutional principles: Article 21 applies to everyone, but immunity from legitimate imprisonment is not granted by the article’s protections.
• Only Indian citizens are granted the right to live and establish in the nation under Article 19(1)(e) and (g).
• The Supreme Court ruled that legislative and constitutional restrictions on the rights granted to non-citizens cannot be overridden by refugee status or humanitarian reasons.
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