The Supreme Court of India on Monday declined to grant refuge to a Sri Lankan national who had sought to remain in India after completing a prison sentence for terrorism-related charges. The court sternly asserted that India is not a dharamshala (free shelter) open to refugees from across the world and emphasised the country's existing population and resource constraints.
A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing a plea by the petitioner, a Sri Lankan Tamil national, who had entered India on a valid visa but was later arrested in 2015 for suspected links to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a designated terrorist organisation.
In 2018, a trial court found him guilty under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and sentenced him to ten years in prison. The Madras High Court in 2022 reduced his sentence to seven years but ordered that he be deported upon the completion of his jail term. The High Court also directed that he be held in a refugee camp in the interim.
Appearing before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that he feared persecution in Sri Lanka due to his Tamil ethnicity and alleged political associations. He said that his wife and children are residing in India, and that he has already been under detention for nearly three years following the completion of his sentence. He also stated that the deportation process had not yet commenced.
Also Read: Apex court asks minister to apologise to Col Sofiya
Responding to these claims, Justice Dipankar Datta questioned the petitioner’s entitlement to remain in India. “Is India to host refugees from all over the world? We are struggling with 140 crore (1.4 billion) people. This is not a dharamshala that we can entertain foreign nationals from all over,” Justice Datta remarked.
The petitioner’s counsel cited Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, and Article 19, which provides for freedoms such as speech and movement. However, the court rejected these arguments. Justice Datta clarified that the petitioner’s detention was lawful and did not violate Article 21. He also noted that Article 19 applies only to Indian citizens, not foreign nationals.
Challenging the petitioner’s claim to stay in India on humanitarian grounds, the court directly asked, “What is your right to settle here?” When the counsel reiterated that his client was a refugee fearing for his life in Sri Lanka, the bench responded by suggesting he seek asylum in another country instead.
The ruling reinforces India’s position on immigration and asylum, particularly concerning individuals associated with proscribed terrorist organisations, even when humanitarian concerns are raised.
Also Read: SC slams minister over 'Colonel Qureshi' remark
Follow us
