Latest news with #KVinodChandran
India Gazette
19-05-2025
- Politics
- India Gazette
'India not a dharamshala to accommodate refugees from all over the world': SC
ANI 19 May 2025, 20:44 GMT+10 New Delhi [India], May 19 (ANI): India is not a dharamshala to accommodate refugees from all over the world, the Supreme Court remarked on Monday while declining to entertain a plea filed by a Sri Lankan national challenging his deportation after serving a jail term. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and K Vinod Chandran said, 'Is India to host refugees from all over the world? We are already struggling with a population of 140 crore. This is not a dharmshala where we can entertain foreign nationals from everywhere.' The apex court was hearing 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). He sought protection from deportation, citing a threat to his life if he were to return to his home country. 'Go to some other country,' said the bench. The petitioner's counsel contended that he had been under detention for nearly three years post his sentence, without any initiation of deportation proceedings. The petitioner, who entered India on a visa, faced a serious threat to his life if sent back to Sri Lanka, the court was informed. The counsel further apprised the bench that the petitioner was a refugee and that his wife and children were already settled in India. (ANI)
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
India not a dharamshala, says SC while denying Lankan Tamil's plea
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with the detention of a Sri Lankan Tamil national, observing that India is not a 'dharamshala' that can accommodate foreign nationals from all over the world. The bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and K Vinod Chandran was hearing a petition challenging the Madras High Court order that directed the petitioner to leave India immediately after completing his sentence in a UAPA case, reported LiveLaw. "Is India to host refugees from all over the world? We are struggling with 140 crore. This is not a dharamshala that we can entertain foreign nationals from all over," Justice Datta observed. "There is no violation of Article 21 as the petitioner's liberty was taken away in accordance with the procedure established under law. The fundamental right to settle in India as per Article 19 is available only to citizens," he added. Who is the petitioner? The petitioner was arrested by the Q Branch of Tamil Nadu Police in 2015, along with two others, on suspicion of being LTTE (a banned organisation in India) operatives. Three years later, he was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment under the UAPA by a trial court. The sentence was reduced to seven years by the Madras High Court in 2022, which also directed him to leave India immediately after completing his sentence. Until his departure, he was to remain in a refugee camp. The case for staying The petitioner's counsel argued that he had arrived in India on a visa and was now facing prolonged detention. 'There is a threat to his life in his home country,' the counsel said, adding that the man's wife and children are settled in India. He further submitted that he has been detained in India for nearly three years without deportation proceedings. He also claimed to have fought in the Sri Lankan war in 2009 as a former member of the LTTE, following which he has been black-gazetted in Sri Lanka. If deported, he would face arrest and torture, the counsel argued. When the petitioner's counsel stated that returning to Sri Lanka could endanger his client's life, Justice Datta responded, 'Go to some other country.'
Hans India
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
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.
Time of India
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
India not a 'dharamshala' for foreigners, says SC while rejecting Lankan's plea to settle
The Supreme Court of India on Monday refused to allow a Sri Lankan man to settle in India after he completed a seven-year jail sentence. The court said that with a population of 140 crore, India cannot become a dharamshala (free shelter) for people from other countries. The man, a Sri Lankan national, was arrested in 2015 for his links with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a banned separatist group in Sri Lanka. In 2018, a Tamil Nadu court convicted him under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and gave him a 10-year sentence. However, the Madras High Court reduced his sentence to seven years in 2022 and directed that he be kept in a refugee camp until he could be deported. Now, after completing his prison term, the man requested the court to allow him to stay in India. His lawyer argued that his wife and children were already settled in the country and that he had the right to life and freedom of movement. GIF89a����!�,D; Continue to video 5 5 Next Stay Playback speed 1x Normal Back 0.25x 0.5x 1x Normal 1.5x 2x 5 5 / Skip Ads by by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Mountain Gear for Extreme Conditions Trek Kit India Learn More Undo But the bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and K Vinod Chandran disagreed. They said that while he had the right to life, he did not have the right to settle in India. 'Is India a dharamshala to host refugees from all over the world?' Justice Datta asked. 'We are already struggling with a 140 crore population.' The man's lawyer also said that returning to Sri Lanka could endanger his life, as he had been associated with the LTTE. The court replied that he could consider moving to another country. 'What is your right to settle here?' the bench questioned. Live Events Earlier, on May 8, a three-judge bench had made similar comments when lawyers Colin Gonsalves and Prashant Bhushan asked the court to stop India from deporting Rohingya Muslims to Myanmar. The bench had said, 'Right to residence is only for Indian citizens. It is not available to foreigners.' Inputs from TOI
Deccan Herald
11-05-2025
- Politics
- Deccan Herald
SC dismisses dowry case by granddaughter-in-law of ex-governor
"We find absolutely no reason to interfere with the invocation of the extraordinary power under Section 482, CrPC which, as rightly held by the High Court, secures the ends of justice and puts to naught a criminal proceeding," a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran said.
