‘A Dharamshala?’: What the SC Said While Rejecting a Sri Lankan Tamil Man's Plea Against Deportation

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has, once again, refused to give relief to a foreign national seeking not to be deported to his home country citing danger to his life, while asking if India was a dharamshala, or rest house, open to all.

The apex court was hearing a petition filed by a Sri Lankan Tamil national to settle in India after completing his seven-year jail term under the anti-terror law Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. According to news reports, the petitioner was arrested in 2015 for alleged links with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a designated terrorist organisation.

Though a lower court in Tamil Nadu had sentenced him to 10 years’ imprisonment, the Madras high court had later reduced it to seven years, stating that he must stay in a Tamil refugee camp after completion of his sentence, and be deported as soon as possible.

However, his lawyer pleaded in the Supreme Court on May 19 that since his wife and child had settled down in India, he too would like to reside in the country, and not be deported to his home country as his life might be in danger there.

The top court bench, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and K. Vinod, refused to give him relief and asked his lawyer, “Is India to host refugees from all over the world? This is not a dharamshala…”

Suggesting that the petitioner could move to any other country, the two-judge bench further questioned, “What is your right to settle here?”

It may be mentioned here that when the Narendra Modi government had amended the Citizenship Act (CAA) in 2019 to accommodate Hindus, Sikhs and Christians from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan, there was a considerable demand to also include the Sri Lankan Tamils within the ambit of the amendment. 

The top court’s refusal to allow the Tamil petitioner to stay on in India comes at the heels of another order by a three-judge bench of the apex court on May 8 where, too, the court had raised similar queries in regard to a plea to put a stay on deportation of a Rohingya refugee. 

The bench, which also comprised Justice Dipankar Datta, besides Surya Kant and N Koteshwar Singh, had then reportedly stated, “Right to residence is only for Indian citizens. It is not available to foreigners.”

On May 16, while hearing a writ petition which alleged that 43 Rohingyas including children, women and elderly and individuals with ailments like cancer were forcibly deported by India to Myanmar after throwing them into international waters, Justices N. Koteshwar Singh and Surya Kant had chastised senior Supreme Court counsel Colin Gonsalves for filing petitions of Rohingyas seeking a stay on their deportation. 

Also read: ‘Thrown Into the Sea’: How India Allegedly Deported 38 Rohingya Refugees Without Due Process

Calling it “fanciful” and “beautifully crafted stories”, the bench had told Gonsalves, “When the country is passing through such a difficult time, you come out with fanciful ideas.”

Snubbing the counsel, the court had said, “Every day you come with one new story. What is the basis of this story? Very beautifully crafted story!”  

“The court asked him to show what is the material to substantiate his allegations, and explain the source of the information regarding Rohingyas, and who will verify his claims, and the details of the person, who is claiming to have personal knowledge of …this,” reported Deccan Herald.  

On citing a UN report on such deportations by India, the bench had asked Gonsalves to submit the material to the court, stating, “People sitting outside do not dictate our authority or our sovereignty.”

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.