India is not a Dharamshala… Supreme Court strict about refugees

New Delhi

The Supreme Court has made a big comment about the refugees. The court said during the hearing of a case that India is not a Dharamshala. Why should refugees from all over the world give shelter in India? We are struggling with 140 crore people. We cannot give shelter to the refugees from everywhere. In the Supreme Court, Justice Dipankar Dutta said this while refusing to intervene in the custody of Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka.
Quit India immediately…

A petition was filed in the Supreme Court against the custody of a Sri Lankan citizen, but the Supreme Court refused to intervene on the petition. The bench was hearing a petition challenging the order of the Madras High Court. It was instructed that the petitioner should leave India immediately as soon as the sentence of 7 years in the UAPA case is completed.

Justice K. in a bench led by Justice Dipankar Dutta. Vinod Chandran was also involved. Sri Lankan Tamil filed an application against the Madras High Court's decision, stating that he would leave the country immediately after his 7 -year sentence was completed. The person was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment in a UAPA case. But Sri Lankan Tamil expressed his desire to stay in India after completion of the sentence. His lawyer told the court that my client had come to India with a visa. Now if he goes back to his country, then his life will be threatened. He said that the person has been kept in custody for nearly three years without any sub -deployment process.

On this, Justice Dipankar Dutta said, 'What is your right to settle here?' The petitioner's lawyer said that he is a refugee and his children and wife are already settlements in India. On this, Justice Dutta said that Article 21 has not been violated in any way in ordering the petitioner to leave India. Justice Dutta said that under Article 19, only the citizen here has the right to settle in India. No outsider has any right to come and settle here. On this, the lawyer said that if my client returns his country, his life will be in danger. On this, Justice Dutta said that he can go to some other country.
Rohingya Refugee application was also rejected by Supreme Court

Let us know that the Supreme Court refused to intervene in the case of Rohingya refugees. In fact, the petitioner was arrested in 2015 for being associated with LTTE. In 2018, the person was convicted by the trial court and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. He appealed to the High Court against this decision, after which he was sentenced to 7 years. Along with this, the order was also given by the High Court that he would leave the country as soon as the sentence is completed. Now the petitioner turned to the Supreme Court against the decision to leave the country, but the court refused to give relief.

Justice Dutta asked what is your right to settle here? The lawyer reiterated that the petitioner is a refugee. Justice Dutta said that according to Article-19, only citizens have the fundamental right to settle in India. When the lawyer said that the petitioner was in danger of life in his country, Justice Dutta said that go to another country.

Let me tell you, in the year 2015, the petitioner was arrested on suspicion of being LTTE operative along with two other people. In the year 2018, the petitioner was convicted by the trial court for a crime under Section 10 of UAPA and was sentenced to ten years imprisonment.

The Madras High Court had reduced his sentence in 2022 to year year, but directed that he would have to leave India immediately after his sentence and stay in the refugee camp till he leaves India.