 "India not a dharamshala, says SC while denying Lankan Tamil's plea")
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with the detention of a Sri Lankan Tamil national, observing that India is not a “dharamshala” that can accommodate foreign nationals from all over the world.
The bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and K Vinod Chandran was hearing a petition challenging the Madras High Court order that directed the petitioner to leave India immediately after completing his sentence in a UAPA case, reported LiveLaw.
"Is India to host refugees from all over the world? We are struggling with 140 crore. This is not a dharamshala that we can entertain foreign nationals from all over," Justice Datta observed.
"There is no violation of Article 21 as the petitioner's liberty was taken away in accordance with the procedure established under law. The fundamental right to settle in India as per Article 19 is available only to citizens," he added.
Who is the petitioner?
The petitioner was arrested by the Q Branch of Tamil Nadu Police in 2015, along with two others, on suspicion of being LTTE (a banned organisation in India) operatives. Three years later, he was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment under the UAPA by a trial court. The sentence was reduced to seven years by the Madras High Court in 2022, which also directed him to leave India immediately after completing his sentence. Until his departure, he was to remain in a refugee camp.
The case for staying
The petitioner’s counsel argued that he had arrived in India on a visa and was now facing prolonged detention. “There is a threat to his life in his home country,” the counsel said, adding that the man’s wife and children are settled in India. He further submitted that he has been detained in India for nearly three years without deportation proceedings.
He also claimed to have fought in the Sri Lankan war in 2009 as a former member of the LTTE, following which he has been black-gazetted in Sri Lanka. If deported, he would face arrest and torture, the counsel argued.
When the petitioner’s counsel stated that returning to Sri Lanka could endanger his client’s life, Justice Datta responded, “Go to some other country.”