Supreme Court Rejects Sri Lankan National's Deportation Appeal, Citing Population Constraints
The Supreme Court has firmly rejected an appeal from a Sri Lankan Tamil citizen seeking protection from deportation, emphasizing that India cannot serve as a refuge for displaced persons from around the world given its existing population pressures.
"Is India to host refugees from all over the world? We are already struggling with a population of 140 crore. This is not a *dharmashala* where we can entertain foreign nationals from everywhere," declared the bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and K Vinod Chandran during Monday's proceedings.
The petitioner, who had completed a seven-year sentence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, challenged a Madras High Court order mandating his immediate deportation. His legal counsel argued that the man had been detained for nearly three additional years without deportation proceedings and faced potentially life-threatening circumstances if returned to Sri Lanka. The petition also noted that his family had already established residence in India.
These arguments failed to persuade the Court, with Justice Datta specifically questioning the petitioner's "right to settle here" and clarifying that while Article 21 concerning his detention had not been violated, Article 19's settlement rights apply exclusively to Indian citizens.
The Court's position reflects growing tensions in India's approach to refugee management, particularly regarding individuals with criminal convictions, as it balances humanitarian concerns against national security and demographic considerations. The bench's suggestion that the petitioner "go to some other country" underscores the limitations of India's current refugee accommodation policies.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
17 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Northeast Delhi riots: After judge's transfer, where does the ‘larger conspiracy' case stand?
Arguments on charge in the Delhi riots 'larger conspiracy' case will have to begin afresh as the judge who had been hearing the case for the last 18 months has been transferred. Out of the 18 accused arrested in the case, 12 have been in jail for over four years. From October to May 2025, five accused — including former JNU student leader Umar Khalid, former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain, Shifa Ur Rehman, and Safoora Zargar — had completed their arguments on charge. The prosecution also completed its arguments during day-to-day hearings. After the remaining persons finished their arguments, the trial of the case would've begun. Family members and lawyers of the accused called the delay a 'punishment'. Shortly after the riots broke out, which left 53 dead and 700 injured, the Delhi Police Special Cell started investigating the alleged conspiracy behind them. During its investigation, it booked the 18 accused under relevant provisions of the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and IPC. The case of the Special Cell was that the riots were the result of a months-long 'deep-rooted' conspiracy allegedly hatched after the Citizenship Amendment Bill got a nod from the Cabinet in December 2019. Between 2020 and 2023, police filed four supplementary chargesheets. With their final chargesheet in June 2023, they marked the completion of their probe into the case. Their case was primarily built on CCTV footage, WhatsApp chats, and statements of protected witnesses. In October 2023, Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Amitabh Rawat of Karkardooma Court had directed that arguments on the charge be conducted on a day-to-day basis. Two months later, ASJ Rawat was transferred and ASJ Sameer Bajpai replaced him. On September 4 last year, the Special Cell officially told ASJ Bajpai that they had completed their investigation. Following this, the judge ordered that arguments on charge would commence from September 5. On May 30 this year, ASJ Bajpai was transferred following a reshuffle of 135 judges across Delhi. 'With the chargesheet of several thousand pages, more than 700 witnesses, other issues and such transfers, we don't know how long it will take. This is very unfortunate. Our sons and daughters are languishing in jail,' said Umar's father, Syed Qasim Rasool Ilyas. 'The problem is that section 43(D) of the UAPA lists extremely stringent bail conditions. The judge has to first make up their mind whether a prima facie case is made out or not. For this, arguments on charge need to be complete. It becomes impossible to get bail otherwise,' said advocate Rajiv Mohan, who represented Husain in court. Along with Mohan, advocate Tara Narula also appeared for Husain. Asif Iqbal Tanha, one of the six accused out on bail, told The Indian Express, 'For the people who are in jail, the delay in trial is very problematic. But even those who are out on bail have various restrictions.' On June 2, ASJ Lalit Kumar, who replaced ASJ Bajpai, heard the case for the first time. The Delhi Police and the accused persons were directed by the judge to furnish their schedule regarding the time frame and manner in which they will address arguments. The court also stated that arguments on charge must be 'expedited'. On June 6, ASJ Kumar asked the prosecution and the defence how long they would take to conclude the arguments. 'I will take 25-27 hours to outline the entire conspiracy… we have submitted a 1,200-page compilation. For the assistance of the honorable Court, I will keep it very concise,' Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad had said. The 18 accused persons in this case are Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, Ishrat Jahan, Faizan Khan, Safoora Zargar, Asif Iqbal Tanha (all six on bail); Tahir Husain, Umar Khalid, Khalid Saifi, Sharjeel Imam, Meeran Haider, Gulfisha Fatima, Shifa-Ur-Rehman, Shadab Ahmed, Tasleem Ahmed, Saleem Malik, Mohd Saleem Khan, and Athar Khan (all 12 in jail).
Mint
35 minutes ago
- Mint
Shashi Tharoor-led delegation ends US visit a powerful message – ‘world knows the truth now'
The multi-party parliamentary delegation led by Congress leader Shashit Tharoor wrapped up its visit to the US after meeting with Vice President J D Vance and Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau among political and diplomatic leaders, to drive home India's strong resolve to combat terrorism emanating from Pakistan. The delegation was on the last leg of a multi-nation tour to brief key interlocutors about Operation Sindoor that India launched in retaliation to the 22 April Pahalgam terror attack that killed 26 people, mostly tourists. The delegation was one of the seven multi-party delegations India had tasked to visit 33 global capitals to reach out to the international community to emphasise Pakistan's links to terrorism. 'If you are born a hundred times, you will do it a hundred times; I will love my country with all my heart; We did whatever we could for the motherland, the whole world knows the truth now," Tharoor wrote on X in Hindi The group arrived in the US capital on June 3 and over the course of three days held a wide array of meetings on Capitol Hill as well as in Washington, briefing American government officials as well as lawmakers about India's stance on cross-border terrorism. The Indian team met Vice President Vance, Landau, House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFAC) leadership, India Caucus leadership and Senate Foreign Relations Committee leaders. It also held meetings and interactions with a host of US Congressmen, think tanks, policy experts, media as well as members of the Indian-American community. Tharoor described the meeting with Vance at the White House for about 25 minutes on Thursday as 'an excellent meeting,' and said the vice president was 'warm and welcoming and receptive.' 'Vance expressed complete understanding, first of all, outrage of what happened in Pahalgam and support and respect for India's restrained response in Operation Sindoor,' Tharoor told PTI after that meeting. The Indian Embassy said in a statement that during the meeting with Landau, the delegation briefed him on the heinous terrorist attack in Pahalgam, discussed India's subsequent Operation Sindoor, and put forth India's firm resolve to counter cross-border terrorism in all its forms. On the last day of the delegation's scheduled meetings, the delegation paid homage to Mahatma Gandhi at his statue opposite the Indian Embassy here. 'It is striking how many world capitals are adorned with statues or busts of the Mahatma, the 20th century's greatest apostle of peace, nonviolence, and human freedom,' Tharoor posted on X afterwards. The team, which had arrived from India in New York on May 24, had travelled to Guyana, Panama, Colombia and Brazil before arriving in Washington for the last leg of the tour. The other members of the delegation were Sarfaraz Ahmad (JMM), Ganti Harish Madhur Balayogi (TDP), Shashank Mani Tripathi (BJP), Bhubaneswar Kalita (BJP), Milind Deora (Shiv Sena), Tejasvi Surya (BJP) and India's former Ambassador to the US Taranjit Sandhu. Tensions between India and Pakistan escalated after the Pahalgam terror attack, with India carrying out precision strikes on terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir on May 7. If you are born a hundred times, you will do it a hundred times; I will love my country with all my heart. The on-ground hostilities from Indian and Pakistan sides that lasted for four days ended with an understanding of stopping the military actions following talks between the directors general of military operations of both sides on May 10.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Private school managements threaten to withhold admissions until payment of pending fee reimbursement
Private unaided school managements' associations in Andhra Pradesh have said they will withhold admissions under Section 12 (1) (C) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, until the government implements the provisions of the Act in letter and spirit. The clause mandates unaided private schools to reserve 25% of their entry-level seats for children belonging to the economically weaker section and disadvantaged groups. In a letter addressed to the State Project Director of Samagra Shiksha, representatives of various associations like Independent Schools' Management Association (ISMA) and Andhra Pradesh Private Unaided Schools' Management Association said they were not against implementation of the Act, but insisted that it be done in its true spirit. They said, along with Section 12 (1) (C), Section 12 (2) of the Act, which mandates determining the per-child expenditure (PCE) incurred by the State government as per the rules and reimbursing either the school fee or the PCE, whichever is lower, as clearly stipulated in the RTE Rules (G.O. Ms. No. 20, Section 10), should be implemented. They also raised the issue of ineligible applicants (who are not underprivileged as defined in the Rules) securing admissions, possibly by using others' Aadhar cards, leading to altered residence and income details. They said, besides violation of the rule pertaining to the distance of the selected school from the applicant's residence, there were issues of incorrect date of birth entries, misuse of caste category, sibling category being claimed through cousin's children, misuse of orphan category through grandparents' details and multiple applications. 'It is unfortunate that schools are being pressured to admit every allotted student without undergoing proper verification process,' said ISMA president K. Sreekanth Babu. He pointed out that schools had not received any fee reimbursement from the State government for Section 12 (1) (C ) admissions over the past three years, and that as per the rules, fee reimbursement should be paid directly to the school's account in two instalments — in September and January every year. The representatives were upset that the authorities concerned had not yet determined, or notified the fee reimbursement for the upcoming academic year 2025-26, which should have been done prior to admissions as per the Act and Rules. They clarified that they were unwilling and unable to admit the allotted students without proper verification and until the fee reimbursement was duly notified and implemented as per Section 12 (2) of the Act and Section (1) of the RTE rules. They said they would also be unable to continue accommodating students admitted in their respective schools under this Act unless payment of the pending fees was made to them.
