The Supreme Court of India on Friday declined to interfere with the detention of a Sri Lankan Tamil national, observing that India cannot serve as a sanctuary for refugees from across the world.

“India is not a dharamshala that can entertain foreign nationals from everywhere,” remarked Justice Dipankar Datta, who headed the bench hearing the matter. “We are already managing a population of 140 crore,” he added during the oral observations.

The two-judge bench, also comprising Justice K Vinod Chandran, was hearing a plea challenging a Madras High Court order that directed the petitioner—a Sri Lankan Tamil convicted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)—to leave India immediately after completing his reduced seven-year prison sentence.

Appearing for the petitioner, the counsel argued that the individual had entered India on a visa and faced threats to his life in Sri Lanka. He noted that the petitioner has remained in detention for nearly three years post-sentence without any formal deportation proceedings being initiated.

Questioning the petitioner’s entitlement to stay in India, Justice Datta asked, “What is your right to settle here?” The counsel responded by emphasizing that the petitioner was a refugee whose wife and children reside in India.

Justice Datta clarified that there was no violation of Article 21 of the Constitution since the petitioner’s liberty had been curtailed in accordance with legal procedures. He further stated that the right to settle in India under Article 19 is reserved for Indian citizens.

When the counsel submitted that the petitioner faced threats to his life in Sri Lanka, the court responded, “Go to some other country.”

The court’s observations come in the wake of its recent refusal to intervene in the deportation of Rohingya refugees.

The petitioner was arrested in 2015 along with two others by the Q Branch police on suspicion of being affiliated with the banned LTTE. He was convicted in 2018 under Section 10 of the UAPA and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment. The Madras High Court later reduced the sentence to seven years in 2022, directing that he be held in a refugee camp and deported upon completing his term.

The petitioner, who claimed to be a former LTTE member involved in the 2009 Sri Lankan civil conflict, argued that he had been “black-gazetted” by the Sri Lankan authorities, and would be subject to arrest and torture if deported. He also cited his wife’s chronic illnesses and his son’s congenital heart condition as grounds for continued stay in India.

The petitioner was represented by advocates R. Sudhakaran, S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, and Vairawan AS (AOR).