Law in Maneka Gandhi case cannot be stretched beyond a point: Madras High Court dismisses plea against deportation of Sri Lankan national

The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea moved against the deportation of a Sri Lankan national upon finding that, contrary to the petitioner's assertions, he did not enjoy the status of a "refugee" and in view of allegations that he was indulging in human trafficking offences within India (Thamarai v. Union of India and ors)..The Court also declined to accept arguments that the Sri Lankan national's deportation without giving him an opportuntiy of hearing is illegal in view of the ruling in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India. .Rather, the Bench of Justice PN Prakash and R Pongiappan observed that the law laid down in Maneka Gandhi's case cannot be stretched beyond a certain point. ."In our opinion, the law laid down in Maneka Gandhi (supra) cannot be stretched beyond a point. In this case, Bhaskaran is not an Indian national and it is alleged that he was involved in human trafficking. Whether he was acquitted or convicted is immaterial. He does not have a fundamental right to stay in India and get Indian citizenship. He knows that his stay in India cannot be eternal. He has to leave India one day or the other", the Court said..The Court was dealing with two cases filed on behalf of Sri Lankan national, Bhaskaran @ Mayuran. .Initially, a habeas corpus petition was moved in 2020, following which a 2019 order for Bhaskaran's deportation out of India was stayed until further orders. .Later, another writ petition was this year filed urging the authorities to consider the representation moved by Bhaskaran in February 2021. This representation sought permission to appear for a personal interview before the Switzerland Embassy at Delhi so that Bhaskaran may get a humanitarian visa to go to Switzerland as a refugee..Both petitions were moved by one, Thamarai who professed to be part of an organisation working for the interests of Sri Lankan Tamils, i.e. the Periyar Unarvalargal Koottu Amaippu. The petitioner (Thamarai) told the Court that Bhaskaran would be murdered if he is deported to Sri Lanka. .He submitted that Bhaskaran had lost his father, brother, sister-in-law and a niece during the final phase of the Sri Lankan-LTTE war. It was further stated that Bhaskaran faced threats in Sri Lanka, including from Intelligence Officers and Terrorists Prevention Unit Officers looking for him. .In this regard, reference was made to a letter dated August 15, 2020, stated to have been authored by one, Sakthivel Sivakumar, Justice of the Peace (Whole Island), Vavuniya, Sri Lanka. The Court, however, declined to rely on this letter, opining that "there is no way by which its authenticity and genuineness can be verified.".The petitioner also laid emphasis on the Central government's 1994 undertaking in the Madras High Court case of Gurunathan and others vs. The Government of India and others, whereby the Centre undertook not to deport any Sri Lankan refugees against their will..However, this did not aid the petitioner either before the High Court. The undertaking was given back in 1994 when the Sri Lankan problem was at its peak, the Bench pointed out. Much water has flown under the bridge since, especially in view of the fact that the final war with the LTTE has ended there, the Court said. ."... this Court cannot use the said undertaking perpetually to prevent the deportation of a Sri Lankan national out of India", the Court added..Coupled with this, the Court also took serious note of the submissions made in a 2020 counter affidavit by the Deputy Secretary to Government, Public (Foreigners) Department and the Deputy Secretary to Government (Protocol), Public Department. .In the said affidavit, it was submitted that Bhaskaran had left for Sri Lanka in 2014 and come back in 2015, and further that he was indulging in human trafficking within India. .He had left a refugee camp of his own accord years back and is no longer registered as a Sri Lankan Tamil refugee in the records of the Commissionerate, the Court was told. The authorities further submitted that Baskaran's claim of being a "refugee" was, therefore, false and that the claims made regarding threats to his life were not substantiated. ."A reading of the above clearly shows that Bhaskaran does not enjoy the status of a refugee from Sri Lanka and that he was indulging in human trafficking offences in India. That is why, perhaps, Bhaskaran himself has not filed any petition challenging his order of deportation, because, had he filed any petition, he would have been forced to speak the truth that he is not a Sri Lankan refugee and that he was involved in criminal cases, in which event, he would not have got the relief", the Court went on to observe..The Bench further criticised the petitioner for having filed the petitions on behalf of Bhaskaran, without disclosing details about the cases pending against him. The Court went on to opine that the petitioner appeared to be playing truant with the legal system to gain unfair advantage by concealing facts..The Court added that Bhaskaran's detention at a Special Campy in Trichy is not per se illegal. The Special Camp is not a prison and the inmates enjoy sufficient freedom for taking recourse to legal remedies, the Court observed further. .Having found no error in the 2019 order for Bhaskaran's deportation, the Court proceeded to dismiss both petitions. Interim orders earlier granted in the matter were vacated. The Bench also clarified that it is not imposing heavy costs on the petitioner as it does not wish to be harsh on him. .Advocate R Sankarasubbu appeared for the petitioner. Advocate V Chandrasekaran appeared for the Union of India. Advocate R Muniyapparaj appeared for the State authorities. .[Read Order]