Rudraksh Saxena
New Delhi, May 19, 2025, On Monday, the Supreme Court of India rejected a request from a Sri Lankan national contesting his deportation, ruling that India cannot act as a “dharamshala” for refugees from all over the world. Citing threats to his life in Sri Lanka and the presence of his family there, the petitioner, who had been found guilty of violating the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, had sought asylum in India. The Court, however, unequivocally rejected the appeal, stating that foreigners must apply for refuge elsewhere if they are being persecuted and cannot have an unconditional right to stay in India.
A Bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and K. Vinod Chandran rejected the petition filed by the Sri Lankan national, upholding the ruling of the Madras High Court, which had directed his immediate deportation upon the completion of his prison sentence. The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court’s decision, reiterating that the petitioner had no legal entitlement to remain in India after serving his sentence.
“This is not a dharamshala where we can entertain foreign nationals from everywhere,” the court remarked, further asserting, “India cannot be expected to absorb refugees from all over the world, particularly when it is grappling with a population of over 140 crore.”
The petitioner, a citizen of Sri Lanka, was found guilty in 2018 by a sessions court under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) for allegedly having ties to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a terrorist organization that is prohibited. In 2015, he was captured by Indian officials and given a ten-year prison sentence. The Madras High Court reduced the sentence to seven years in 2022 and ordered that he can be detained in a camp for refugees until his deportation could take place.
According to his attorney, the petitioner had been held for almost three years past the end of his sentence without any official deportation procedures being started. Citing safeguards under Articles 21 and 19 of the Constitution, the lawyer urged the court to allow him to stay in India, pointing out that his wife and kids had already made their home there.
The Bench, however, was dissatisfied Justice Datta said that since the petitioner’s detention was lawful, there had been no violation of Article 21, which protects life and personal liberty. The court further noted that only Indian citizens are covered by Article 19, which protects freedoms like speech and movement, and that foreigners are not.
In a pointed rejoinder to the petitioner’s plea for asylum, the court asked, “What is your right to settle here?”
The Supreme Court upheld the government’s right to control foreigners’ presence in India and reiterated that, absent legal authorization, refugee claims do not grant people the right to permanent residency.
Case Information
Krishnakumar @ Kanthan & Ors. v. State Represented by The Additional Superintendent of Police, Q Branch CID, Ramanathapuram Range, CRL.A.(MD).No.359 of 2018, decided on 21 June 2022, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, per K. Murali Shankar, J.
Click here to access the order
Instagram: Click here
LinkedIn: Click here
For Collaboration and Business: info.desikaanoon@gmail.com
