India Is Not a Dharmashala: Supreme Court’s Strong Observation on Refugee Rights

New Delhi, May 19: The Supreme Court of India has made a strong statement on the issue of refugees, observing that “India is not a dharmashala” (a shelter for all). The bench, comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice K Vinod Chandran, made this remark while dismissing a plea by a Sri Lankan Tamil national accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

According to legal news platform Live Law, the petitioner had challenged a Madras High Court order which had directed that he must leave India immediately after completing a 7-year prison sentence. His lawyer argued that the man had entered India with a valid visa and feared for his life if he returned to Sri Lanka. He also stated that the petitioner had been detained for nearly three years, and his family was living in India.

India Is Not a Dharmashala: Supreme Court’s Strong Observation on Refugee Rights

However, the Supreme Court rejected the arguments, asking under what right the individual expected to stay in India. Justice Datta remarked, “Has India become a shelter for the whole world? We already have a population of 1.4 billion. This is not a dharmashala where we can accommodate everyone.”

The Court made it clear that only Indian citizens have the constitutional right to reside permanently in the country under Article 19 of the Constitution. When the counsel cited threats to the petitioner’s life, Justice Datta responded sharply, “Then go to some other country!”

This judgment aligns with the Supreme Court’s earlier stance in other refugee-related matters, including a recent case regarding Rohingya deportations, in which the court also declined to intervene.

📌 Key Takeaways:

• The Supreme Court dismissed a plea by a Sri Lankan Tamil facing deportation after serving a UAPA sentence.

• Only Indian citizens have the fundamental right to reside permanently in India.

• The Court emphasized that India cannot be expected to shelter refugees from around the world.

• Fears over the petitioner’s personal safety did not justify a stay in India, according to the court.