New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Monday firmly rejected a plea filed by a Sri Lankan Tamil national seeking protection from deportation after completing a jail term. The court made it clear that India cannot serve as a shelter for refugees from around the world.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and K Vinod Chandran heard the case. The petitioner had been convicted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and had served a 7-year sentence. The Madras High Court had earlier ordered his immediate deportation after the sentence ended.
The petitioner challenged this order, citing a threat to his life if he returned to Sri Lanka.
SC Says No Right to Settle
The Supreme Court did not find merit in the arguments. “Is India to host refugees from all over the world?” Justice Datta asked. “We are already struggling with a population of 140 crore. This is not a dharamshala (sanctuary).”
The court questioned the petitioner’s right to remain in India. “What is your right to settle here?” the judge asked. The petitioner’s lawyer responded that the man was a refugee and that his wife and children were settled in India.
The bench, however, stood firm. It said that Article 19, which guarantees the right to settle in India, is meant only for Indian citizens. It also ruled that Article 21 — the right to life — had not been violated, as the detention was lawful.
Three Years in Detention Post-Sentence
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the man had been kept in detention for nearly three years after finishing his sentence, with no deportation process initiated. He claimed this was illegal and posed a risk to the petitioner’s life.
However, the Supreme Court dismissed the claim. The bench said the detention followed legal procedure and could not be considered a violation of rights.
“Go to Some Other Country”
In a strong remark, the court suggested the petitioner seek refuge elsewhere. “Go to some other country,” the bench stated, closing the door on any hopes of asylum in India.
The judgment reinforces India’s stance on strict immigration control and its limited capacity to host foreign nationals, especially those convicted under anti-terror laws. The court made it clear that India cannot be a universal refuge, especially when national security and population concerns are at stake.
