India’s Supreme Court made a significant observation while addressing a petition from a Sri Lankan Tamil national challenging his deportation after serving a seven-year sentence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The court, presided over by Justices Dipankar Datta and K Vinod Chandran, emphasized that India, with its population of 140 crore, cannot be expected to host refugees from across the globe. The bench remarked that India is not a “dharamshala” (a public shelter) for foreign nationals seeking refuge, highlighting the country’s demographic and resource constraints.
The petitioner, arrested in 2015 on suspicion of links to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a banned militant organization, had been convicted in 2018 and initially sentenced to 10 years. In 2022, the Madras High Court reduced his sentence to seven years but ordered his immediate deportation upon release, directing him to stay in a refugee camp until the process was complete. The petitioner argued that he had entered India on a valid visa and faced life-threatening risks if returned to Sri Lanka, where he claimed to be blacklisted due to his past involvement in the Sri Lankan civil war as an LTTE member in 2009. He further noted that his wife, suffering from multiple illnesses, and his son, who has a congenital heart condition, were settled in India.
The Supreme Court, however, remained unmoved. Justice Datta questioned the petitioner’s right to settle in India, clarifying that fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution, which include freedom of speech and movement, apply only to Indian citizens. The court also ruled that the petitioner’s detention did not violate Article 21 (protection of life and liberty), as it was carried out in accordance with legal procedures. When the petitioner’s counsel reiterated the threat to his life in Sri Lanka, the bench suggested seeking asylum in another country, underscoring that India’s capacity to accommodate refugees is limited.
This ruling aligns with the court’s recent decisions, including its refusal to intervene in the deportation of Rohingya refugees. The petitioner’s counsel highlighted that the individual had been detained for nearly three years post-sentence without deportation proceedings, but the court declined to interfere with the Madras High Court’s directive.
Sponsored
FACTS Transcripts
Apply for a University document anywhere
https://www.factstranscript.com
Quick Transcripts for popular Universities, check your University name now and get started. We help you to get your transcript application online which is accepted for use of IRCC.
No DD, NO Paperwork. 100% Authentic, Reliable.
FACTS Transcripts Charges · Reviews · Assam Universities · Home · Know your University
