When the petitioner’s counsel stressed that he was a refugee and his life was in danger in Sri Lanka. The bench, however, remained unconvinced. “Go to some other country,” the judges commented, rejecting the plea.
The Supreme Court on Monday turned down the petition of a Sri Lankan Tamil citizen, seeking refuge in the country and protection from deportation, saying, “India is not a dharmashala (free shelter) that can entertain refugees from all over the world”.
The bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing a petition filed by a Sri Lankan national, who was arrested in 2015 on suspicion of being linked to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a terrorist organisation once active in Sri Lanka.
In 2018, a trial court had convicted the man under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and sentenced him to 10 years in jail. In 2022, the Madras High Court slashed his term to seven years but asked him to leave the country as soon as his sentence was over and stay in a refugee camp till his deportation.
The petitioner, a Sri Lankan Tamil, told the Supreme Court that he had come to India with a visa and that his life was in danger in his home country. He also said his wife and children were settled in India and that he had been under detention for nearly three years now and the deportation process had not begun.
‘Is India to host refugees from all over the world?’
In response, Justice Datta said, “Is India to host refugees from all over the world? We are struggling with 140 crore. This is not a dharmshala that we can entertain foreign nationals from all over.”
The petitioner had cited the Constitution’s Article 21 (protection of life and liberty) and Article 19, which grants fundamental rights, including freedom of speech and movement. Justice Datta said the petitioner’s detention does not violate Article 21 because he was taken into custody as per law. The court further pointed out that Article 19 is available only to Indian citizens.
“What is your right to settle here?” the court asked. When the petitioner’s counsel stressed that he was a refugee and his life was in danger in Sri Lanka.
The bench, however, remained unconvinced. “Go to some other country,” the judges commented, rejecting the plea.
The court’s decision aligns with its earlier stance in refusing to stay the deportation of Rohingya refugees.