The Madras High Court recently held that registered refugees are entitled to invoke constitutional protection against arbitrary and discriminatory State action under Article 14. [Thirukalyanamalar v. State Bank of India]..Justice Hemant Chandangoudar set aside the State Bank of India’s 2013 order terminating a Sri Lankan Tamil refugee from service, holding that the action was arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of the right to equality. The Court held,"Merely because the recruitment advertisement stipulated that applications were invited only from Indian citizens, the same cannot, by itself, constitute a valid ground for termination of services, particularly when the petitioner was initially appointed without any demur, is not an illegal immigrant...".The case concerned G Thirukalyanamalar, a registered Sri Lankan Tamil refugee, who was appointed in 2008 as an Officer – Marketing and Recovery (Rural) pursuant to an SBI recruitment notification. She continued in service for over 17 years under interim orders of the Court.Her services were terminated in June 2013 after SBI discovered during verification that she was a Sri Lankan national and not an Indian citizen, citing the eligibility condition in the recruitment notification.Challenging the termination, the petitioner contended that she had lawfully resided in India since childhood, had disclosed her place of birth and that her removal solely on the ground of nationality was arbitrary and violative of Article 14..Rejecting SBI’s objection that a non-citizen could not maintain a writ petition, the Court held that Article 226 is not confined to enforcement of citizen-specific rights.“A plain reading of Article 226…makes it abundantly clear that the High Court...is empowered to issue writs not only for enforcement of fundamental rights but also ‘for any other purpose’,” the Court observed.After surveying Supreme Court precedent, the Court conclusively held:“So long as the impugned action affects or infringes the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, a non-citizen, including a refugee, is entitled to seek redressal under Article 226.”The Court clarified that while non-citizens cannot invoke Articles 15, 16 and 19, citizenship is immaterial where arbitrariness or discrimination is alleged..The Court noted that the petitioner’s residence in India was lawful and protected under the Immigration and Foreigners (Exemption) Order, 2025, which exempts registered Sri Lankan Tamil refugees from passport and visa requirements.Consequently, the Court held:“The residence of the petitioner…cannot be characterised as illegal. On the contrary, her stay stands regularised and protected.”The Court also took note of Tamil Nadu’s refugee rehabilitation schemes, under which Sri Lankan Tamil refugees are permitted to pursue education and employment..Rejecting SBI’s allegation that the petitioner had fraudulently suppressed her nationality, the Court recorded that the application form did not contain any column requiring disclosure of citizenship..Emphasising the petitioner’s uninterrupted service since 2008, the Court held that terminating her at this stage would defeat her legitimate expectation and deprive her of livelihood.The Court also noted that the petitioner had received performance incentives, was married to an Indian citizen and had two Indian-citizen children, holding that her removal would cause irreparable hardship..While quashing the termination order, it clarified,“This order is passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and shall not be treated as a precedent. The right of the respondent Bank to restrict employment to Indian citizens is left open and has not been adjudicated.".The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate KM Ramesh and Advocate V Subramani.SBI was represented by Advocates C Mohan and Rexy Josephine Mary from King and Partridge..[Read Judgment].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.
