The Supreme Court on May 19 observed that India is not a “dharamshala” and cannot “entertain foreign nationals from everywhere.” The apex court’s remarks came while refusing to interfere with the detention of a Sri Lankan Tamil national.
“Is India to host refugees from all over the world? We’re already struggling with a population of 140 crore. This is not a dharamshala that we can entertain foreign nationals from everywhere,” said Justice Dipankar Datta, who was heading the bench.
The petitioner, a Sri Lankan national who had arrived in India on a visa, was earlier arrested on suspicion of being a LTTE operative. His counsel argued that returning to Sri Lanka would endanger his life and highlighted that he had already spent nearly three years in detention without any progress on deportation.
The petition challenged a Madras High Court order directing the petitioner to leave the country immediately after serving a seven-year sentence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice K Vinod Chandran heard the matter. In 2018, a Sri Lankan citizen was sentenced by a trial court to 10 years in prison under the Illegal Activities Act. In 2022, the Madras High Court reduced the sentence to seven years. The court directed that he be deported to Sri Lanka after completing his sentence.
The petitioner, however, sought refugee status in India, stating that his wife and children were settled in the country and that his life would be in danger if he returned to Sri Lanka. He contended that he had been in detention for nearly three years and that the deportation process had not been initiated.
The petitioner’s lawyer argued under Article 21 of the Constitution, which ensures protection of life and personal liberty, and Article 19, which guarantees fundamental rights including freedom of speech and movement. Justice Datta, however, stated that the detention was in accordance with the law and not in violation of Article 21. The court also noted that Article 19 is applicable only to Indian citizens.
This observation is significant in the context of India, as the country has often been a recipient of refugee claims. In 2017, numerous protests took place across India demanding refugee status for Rohingya Muslims who had entered the country illegally from Myanmar. Speaking at the India Today East Conclave, Congress leader Sushmita Dev urged the government to consider the plight of the Rohingya Muslims on humanitarian grounds and in line with international refugee laws. She also referenced Articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution to argue that the Rohingya are entitled to protection from the central government. However, the Supreme Court has now made an observation that rejects all such arguments.
Comments