Institute of Legal and Management Studies

India is not a "dharamshala" that can entertain refugees from all over the world, the Supreme Court orally observed, while refusing to interfere with the detention of a Sri Lankan Tamil national.

"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," Justice Dipankar Datta, the presiding judge of the bench, observed.

The bench, also comprising Justice K Vinod Chandran, was hearing a petition challenging the Madras High Court's order, which directed that the petitioner should immediately leave India as soon as his 7-year sentence, imposed in a UAPA case, got over.

The petitioner's counsel told the bench that he was a Sri Lankan Tamil, who had come here on a visa, and said that there was a threat to his life in his home country. He pointed out that the petitioner has been under detention for nearly three years without any deportation process.

"What is your right to settle here?" Justice Datta asked. The counsel reiterated that the petitioner was a refugee and that his wife and children were settled here in India.

Justice Datta said that 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, Justice Datta added.

When the counsel stated that the petitioner was facing a threat to life in his country, Justice Datta said, "Go to some other country."

Recently, the Supreme Court had refused to interfere with the deportation of Rohingya refugees.

In 2015, the petitioner, along with two others, were arrested by the Q Branch on suspicion of being LTTE operatives. In 2018, the petitioner was convicted by the trial court for the offence under Section 10 of the UAPA and was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment. In 2022, the Madras High Court reduced his sentence to 7 years but directed that he should leave India immediately after his sentence and must remain in a refugee camp till he leaves India.

The petitioner said that since he had fought in the Sri Lankan war in 2009 as a former member of the LTTE, he is black-gazetted in Sri Lanka. Hence, if he is sent back there, he will face arrest and torture. He also said that his wife was ailing from several diseases and his son was suffering from a congenital heart disease.

The petitioner was represented by Advocates R. Sudhakaran, S. Prabu Ramasubramanian and Vairawan AS AOR.

Case : SUBASKARAN @ JEEVAN @ RAJA @ PRABHA vs STATE | Diary No. 21310-2025