In a significant interim relief, the Supreme Court on June 24 stayed a deportation order passed nearly six years ago against a Sri Lankan Tamil man lodged in the Trichy Special Camp, and sought the response of Indian authorities on his plea to be allowed to physically visit the Embassy of Switzerland for processing a humanitarian visa.
A bench comprising Justices K.V. Viswanathan and N. Kotiswar Singh issued notice on the Special Leave Petition filed by the detainee, taking note of the prolonged lapse of time since the impugned order dated November 20, 2019. The Court expressed its intent to first ascertain the present status of the petitioner from the Tamil Nadu state authorities before any further steps are taken.
The petitioner, who has been in India for nine years (three in prison and six in the Trichy Special Camp), approached the apex court after the Madras High Court, in December 2024, rejected his plea for permission to visit the Swiss Embassy. According to his counsel, Senior Advocate Jayant Muth Raj, the petitioner fears for his life if deported to Sri Lanka, having lost several family members, including his father, brother, and sister-in-law, in targeted killings during and after the war.
“Don’t deport me… all my family members have been eliminated… I am not a threat to India… If Switzerland is willing to give me a humanitarian visa, I will go there instead of getting killed in Sri Lanka,” Muth Raj submitted on behalf of the petitioner, as per a report in LiveLaw. He also informed the bench that the Swiss Embassy had asked the petitioner to appear in person to complete visa formalities, and that the petitioner was willing to bear the cost of a security escort to facilitate his visit.
The petitioner had earlier faced charges in a human trafficking case, but was acquitted in 2019. Despite this, he continues to remain in administrative detention under the shadow of a deportation order.
When Justice Viswanathan asked why the matter needed to be listed during partial working days, counsel emphasised the urgency of the situation and detailed the brutal executions faced by the petitioner’s family members even after the war had ended. He argued that returning the petitioner to Sri Lanka would amount to a death sentence.
In view of these submissions, and given that the deportation order is over five years old, the Court granted an interim stay on deportation and directed the authorities to respond. The matter will next be heard on August 4, 2025.
“The petitioner challenges an order dated 20.11.2019 directing his deportation. It is nearly six years since the said order is made. Also a prayer is made to permit him to physically appear at Switzerland Embassy to process his Visa application.” (Para 4)
“Considering the fact that the deportation order is about five years and six months old, we would like to ascertain the present status from respondent No.2 – State. In the meantime, the deportation of the petitioner is stayed.” (Para 5)
The June 24 order of the Supreme Court may be read below.
Earlier SC bench refused relief: “India is not a Dharamshala,” Said Justice Datta while rejecting Tamil refugee’s plea
In sharp contrast to the June 24 order passed by the Viswanathan-Kotiswar bench, a different bench of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Dipankar Datta, had in May refused to grant relief to another Sri Lankan Tamil national who had sought protection from deportation after completing his sentence under the UAPA.
During the hearing, which took place on May 19, Justice Datta made strong oral observations, questioning the very premise of allowing such individuals to remain in India:
“Is India to host refugees from all over the world? We are struggling with 140 crore people. This is not a dharamshala that we can entertain foreign nationals from all over.”
According to the report in LiveLaw, the petitioner had argued that he was blacklisted in Sri Lanka due to his alleged association with the LTTE during the 2009 war, and feared arrest, torture or worse if sent back. He also pointed out that he had already served his reduced seven-year sentence and was languishing in detention without any concrete deportation process. His wife and children were residing in India, and his son was suffering from a congenital heart condition.
But the bench, also comprising Justice K. Vinod Chandran, showed no inclination to intervene. Justice Datta questioned the petitioner’s very right to seek protection under Indian constitutional law: “What is your right to settle here?” As per the report in LiveLaw, Justice Datta added that the right to reside or settle in India under Article 19 is available only to Indian citizens and asserted that there was no violation of Article 21 since the petitioner’s liberty had been curtailed following due process of law.
When counsel highlighted the genuine threat to life in Sri Lanka, Justice Datta curtly remarked:
“Go to some other country.”
No interim protection was granted. The Court refused to stay the Madras High Court’s direction that the petitioner must leave India immediately after completing his sentence and remain confined to a refugee camp until his deportation.
This unyielding posture sits uneasily beside the more humanitarian approach taken by the Viswanathan-Kotiswar bench, and exposes the deep inconsistencies in how refugee protection is being adjudicated in India’s highest court.
The May 19 order of the Supreme Court may be read below.
Related:
J&K High court orders repatriation of 63-year-old woman deported to Pakistan without due process