India is not a dharamshala (a public shelter) to accommodate refugees from across the world, observed the Supreme Court on Monday while declining to extend relief to a Sri Lankan national who was facing deportation. .A bench Justices Dipankar Datta and K Vinod Chandran was dealing with a plea challenging a Madras High Court order directing a Sri Lankan Tamil national to leave India immediately after completing a seven-year prison sentence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA)."Is India to host refugees from all over the world? ... This is not a Dharmshala that we can entertain foreign nationals from all over," the Court orally remarked, before dismissing the plea..The plea before the Court was filed by Subaskaran, a Sri Lankan Tamil national, who was arrested in 2015 on allegations that he was part of a conspiracy to revive the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a militant organisation that had worked to set up an independent Tamil State in Sri Lanka.He was convicted by a trial court in Ramanathapuram in 2018 under various provisions of the UAPA, the Passport Act, the Foreigners Act, the Poisons Act, and the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment..In 2022, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court reduced his sentence to seven years on appeal. The High Court further ordered him to leave India without delay after he was released from prison, adding that he could remain in a refugee camp until then. Following the High Court’s order, the Subaskaran's wife submitted a representation to the Tamil Nadu Government requesting his release from the Trichy Special Camp to live peacefully with his family without forcing him to leave from India.When the government did not respond to her representation, she approached the Madras High Court to prevent his husband's deportation, but her plea was rejected. This ultimately prompted the filing of a petition before the Supreme Court, where Subaskaran contended that he was falsely and arbitrarily implicated in the UAPA case. .Advocate R Sudhakaran, representing Subaskaran, argued that he would face torture if he were deported to Sri Lanka. The counsel urged the Court to allow Subaskaran to remain in India, adding that he could live in a refugee camp indefinitely..However, the Court declined to intervene, stating that if the Subaskaran's life is at risk in Sri Lanka, he should seek refugee status in another country..If they are foreigners, they have to be deported: Supreme Court in Rohingya case.Advocate Vairawan AS also represented the Subaskaran before the Supreme Court.
India is not a dharamshala (a public shelter) to accommodate refugees from across the world, observed the Supreme Court on Monday while declining to extend relief to a Sri Lankan national who was facing deportation. .A bench Justices Dipankar Datta and K Vinod Chandran was dealing with a plea challenging a Madras High Court order directing a Sri Lankan Tamil national to leave India immediately after completing a seven-year prison sentence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA)."Is India to host refugees from all over the world? ... This is not a Dharmshala that we can entertain foreign nationals from all over," the Court orally remarked, before dismissing the plea..The plea before the Court was filed by Subaskaran, a Sri Lankan Tamil national, who was arrested in 2015 on allegations that he was part of a conspiracy to revive the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a militant organisation that had worked to set up an independent Tamil State in Sri Lanka.He was convicted by a trial court in Ramanathapuram in 2018 under various provisions of the UAPA, the Passport Act, the Foreigners Act, the Poisons Act, and the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment..In 2022, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court reduced his sentence to seven years on appeal. The High Court further ordered him to leave India without delay after he was released from prison, adding that he could remain in a refugee camp until then. Following the High Court’s order, the Subaskaran's wife submitted a representation to the Tamil Nadu Government requesting his release from the Trichy Special Camp to live peacefully with his family without forcing him to leave from India.When the government did not respond to her representation, she approached the Madras High Court to prevent his husband's deportation, but her plea was rejected. This ultimately prompted the filing of a petition before the Supreme Court, where Subaskaran contended that he was falsely and arbitrarily implicated in the UAPA case. .Advocate R Sudhakaran, representing Subaskaran, argued that he would face torture if he were deported to Sri Lanka. The counsel urged the Court to allow Subaskaran to remain in India, adding that he could live in a refugee camp indefinitely..However, the Court declined to intervene, stating that if the Subaskaran's life is at risk in Sri Lanka, he should seek refugee status in another country..If they are foreigners, they have to be deported: Supreme Court in Rohingya case.Advocate Vairawan AS also represented the Subaskaran before the Supreme Court.
