Brief Summary
This video discusses a recent Supreme Court case involving a Sri Lankan Tamil refugee and its implications for India's refugee policy. The court's statement that "India is not a dharamshala" has sparked debate about the country's approach to refugees, its lack of a specific refugee law, and the balance between humanitarian concerns and national security.
- The Supreme Court rejected the plea of a Sri Lankan Tamil refugee, stating India is not obligated to host refugees from all over the world.
- India is not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention, and lacks a specific domestic law for refugees.
- The judgement highlights the debate between humanitarian concerns, national security and constitutional limitations regarding the rights of foreign nationals.
Introduction
The video introduces the topic of refugees in India, highlighting the ongoing debate about whether India should allow refugees into the country. It mentions the differing viewpoints of human rights activists, who advocate for allowing refugees on humanitarian grounds, and others who argue against it due to population burden and potential illegal activities. The video then focuses on a recent Supreme Court case involving a Sri Lankan Tamil refugee, which has brought the issue to the forefront.
Background of the Case
In 2015, a Sri Lankan Tamil refugee named Subash Karan was arrested in India. He did not want to return to Sri Lanka, leading to a Supreme Court judgement stating that "India is not a dharamshala" (charitable shelter). Karan had entered India from Sri Lanka and was later convicted under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) in 2018 due to alleged links with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a designated terrorist organisation in both India and Sri Lanka. His initial 10-year sentence was reduced to seven years by the Madras High Court in 2022, which also ordered his deportation to Sri Lanka upon completion of his sentence, or placement in a refugee camp until deportation was possible.
Arguments Presented in Supreme Court
Subash Karan challenged the deportation order in the Supreme Court, arguing that his life would be in danger if he returned to Sri Lanka due to his past association with the LTTE and the ongoing political repression of former rebels. He also argued that his wife and children reside in India, making his deportation inhumane and unjust.
Supreme Court's Judgement and Key Points
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and K. Vinod Chandran, rejected Subash Karan's arguments and upheld the deportation order. Justice Datta questioned whether India should host refugees from all over the world, given its existing population of 1.4 billion, stating, "This is not a dharamshala that we can entertain foreign nationals from all over the world." The Supreme Court clarified that Article 19 of the Constitution grants Indian citizens the right to reside and settle anywhere in India, a right not extended to foreigners, including refugees. The court also stated that the detention and deportation of convicted foreign nationals after a lawful trial and sentence does not violate Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty), as due process of law has been followed. The court suggested that if Subash Karan required asylum, he should seek assistance from another country willing to accept him.
India's Refugee Policy
India is not a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol, meaning it has no legal obligation under international law to accept refugees. India lacks a specific domestic law for refugees and deals with them under the Foreigners Act, 1946, which also applies to tourists and illegal immigrants. Deportation is discretionary and based on a case-by-case basis, determined by the government. India has selectively recognised certain groups as refugees, such as Tibetans, Sri Lankan Tamils, Chakmas, Rohingyas, and Afghans, but their legal status remains ambiguous, with many living in refugee camps without citizenship rights.
Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) 2019
The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) 2019, offers a fast track to Indian citizenship for persecuted non-Muslim minorities from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh. However, Sri Lankan Tamils are excluded from this provision. Despite this, approximately 100,000 Sri Lankan Tamils currently reside in India. There is no structured pathway to citizenship for individuals like Subash Karan.
Implications of the Supreme Court Judgement
The Supreme Court judgement provides legal clarity on the rights of foreign nationals, stating they cannot claim settlement rights in India under the Constitution. It also highlights the need for a comprehensive law on asylum to address the current refugee protection vacuum, where decisions are made on a case-by-case basis. The judgement prioritises national security, asserting that even if a foreign national's family resides in India, they cannot claim the right to stay. The ruling is expected to spark a wider debate in India, with human rights activists raising concerns about the lack of a human refugee framework. Policy experts argue for a balanced law that considers both humanitarian concerns and security priorities. The case, involving a Sri Lankan Tamil, may also have political implications in Tamil Nadu, where the ruling DMK party may raise objections.
