Monday, May 19, 2025
spot_imgspot_img

Top 5 This Week

spot_img

Related Posts

India Is a Nation, Not a Shelter”: Supreme Court Denies Relief to Sri Lankan National Facing Deportation

India, the Supreme Court made clear on Monday, is not a “dharamshala” — not a revolving door for displaced persons from around the globe seeking indefinite refuge under its roof.

The comment came as a two-judge bench, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and K Vinod Chandran, dismissed a plea filed by Subaskaran, a Sri Lankan Tamil national convicted under multiple Indian laws, including the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Subaskaran had sought to remain in India after completing a reduced seven-year sentence for alleged links to the now-defunct LTTE — the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.

“Is India to host refugees from all over the world?” the Court asked pointedly during the hearing. “This is not a dharamshala where any foreign national can walk in and stay.”

Subaskaran’s case stems from a 2015 arrest in Ramanathapuram, where he was accused of conspiring to revive the LTTE — an organization long designated as a terrorist group. In 2018, a trial court handed down a ten-year sentence. That term was trimmed to seven years by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in 2022, with an order that he be deported immediately upon release. Until that moment, he was to remain confined within a refugee camp.

Unwilling to accept exile, Subaskaran’s wife had submitted a request to the Tamil Nadu Government asking that he be allowed to live with his family after release. When that request drew silence, she turned to the High Court, which denied her plea. The final stop was the Supreme Court.

There, Subaskaran’s counsel pleaded that returning to Sri Lanka would subject him to torture and danger. He argued for indefinite refuge in India — even if that meant staying inside a camp.

The Court, however, was unmoved. It maintained that India was under no obligation to provide sanctuary and suggested that if there was a genuine threat to Subaskaran’s life, he should consider seeking asylum elsewhere.

The message was plain: while compassion has its place, national boundaries and laws are not open to endless reinterpretation.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Popular Articles