India Not a Dharamshala, Says Supreme Court
Break10 Web Desk: The Supreme Court today dismissed a plea by a Sri Lankan national seeking to stay in India after completing a seven-year prison term under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The court emphasised that India, with its population of 140 crore, cannot serve as a ‘dharamshala’ —a free shelter—for foreign nationals.
A two-member division bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice K Vinod Chandran heard the petitioner’s case. The individual, arrested in 2015 on allegations of links to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), argued that returning to Sri Lanka posed a threat to his life. However, the court remained unconvinced, suggesting that if he could not return to Sri Lanka, he should consider relocating to another country.
Also Read: Is Elon Musk Losing the Plot?
The Supreme Court’s decision aligns with its recent stance on similar matters. Just days prior, the court rejected a plea by Rohingya Muslims against deportation, reinforcing India’s position on not accommodating foreign nationals without proper legal grounds for residency.
This ruling underscores the court’s emphasis on maintaining India’s immigration and residency controls, especially given the nation’s vast population and resource constraints. The term ‘dharamshala’ was used metaphorically to convey that India cannot be a sanctuary for all global refugees.
The apex court’s decision has sparked a debate on India’s approach to asylum seekers and the balance between humanitarian considerations and national interests. Legal experts note that while the right to seek asylum is recognized internationally, individual countries have the sovereignty to determine their immigration policies.
