NEW DELHI: "India is not a dharamshala (free shelter) that can accommodate refugees from all over the world," the Supreme Court observed on Monday while dismissing a Sri Lankan national's plea seeking direction to take refuge here, as he claimed that his life was in danger in his home country.
A two-judge bench of the top court, led by Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice K Vinod Chandran, observed that India cannot afford to host refugees as it is already struggling to manage its population of 140 crore.
"This is not a dharamshala, where we can entertain foreign nationals from everywhere. Please go to some other country," the bench stated.
The apex court responded to a plea filed by the Sri Lankan man challenging an order issued by the Madras High Court directing him to leave India immediately after completing a seven-year prison sentence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).
The petitioner was arrested by Indian prosecuting agencies here in 2015 following suspicions of the man's alleged links to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a banned terrorist organisation in Sri Lanka.
After the trial concluded in 2018, a sessions court convicted him under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and sentenced him to 10 years in jail.
In 2022, however, the Madras High Court reduced his jail sentence to seven years. It had asked him to leave the country as soon as his sentence was over and directed him to stay in a refugee camp before his deportation.
His lawyer told the apex court that he had been under detention for nearly three years after his sentence, without any initiation of deportation proceedings.
The counsel further submitted to the bench that the petitioner was a refugee and that his wife and children had already settled in India.
"What is your right to settle here?" the court pointed out and remarked.
During the course of the hearing, his lawyer even pleaded to the apex court that under the Constitution's Article 21 (Protection of life and liberty) and Article 19, which grants fundamental rights, including freedom of speech and movement, he can avail certain remedies.
But Justice Datta, refusing the contentions, told him the petitioner's detention does not violate Article 21 because he was taken into custody as per law.
The court clarified that the remedy available under Article 19 can be exercised by only to Indian citizens.