The Bharatiya Apex/Supreme Court (SC) has recently pronounced a judgement that can set the yardstick on dealing with refugees in Bharat. The SC rejected a Sri Lankan Tamil refugee’s plea citing that Bharat was not a ‘Dharmshala’ (Hindu place where travelers sought refuge free of cost in ancient times).
SC rejects plea of Sri Lankan Tamil refugee Subaskaran
The Supreme Court on Monday (19 May) dismissed a petition filed by a Sri Lankan national seeking refuge in Bharat (India), asserting that the country cannot serve as a shelter for refugees from across the globe. A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice K Vinod Chandran made the observation while hearing the case of a Sri Lankan man who was arrested in 2015 for alleged links with the banned terrorist organization, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).
Initially sentenced to 10 years in prison by a trial court in 2018 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), his punishment was later reduced to seven years by the Madras High Court in 2022. The High Court also directed that he be deported immediately upon completing his sentence and reside in a refugee camp until that process was completed.
The petitioner argued before the Supreme Court that his life would be in danger if he returned to Sri Lanka. He stated that he had entered Bharat legally with a valid visa and had already spent nearly three years in detention, with no progress on his deportation. He also mentioned that his wife and children continue to reside in Bharat.
His counsel invoked Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty, along with Article 19, which provides for fundamental freedoms such as speech and movement. However, the bench clarified that Article 19 applies exclusively to Bharatiya citizens and questioned the petitioner’s legal basis for wanting to settle in the country.
“Is India supposed to host refugees from across the world? We are already a nation of 140 crore people. This is not a Dharamshala that we can accommodate every foreign national,” Justice Datta remarked.
The SC concluded that the petitioner’s detention was lawful and did not violate Article 21. It further advised him to explore the option of seeking asylum in another country, rather than expecting permanent refuge in Bharat.
The illegal Rohingyas & Bangladeshis threat
We have seen regular crackdowns in several states across Bharat, including Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh (UP), Tripura, Assam, and Delhi among others. Last, July the UP ATS (Anti Terrorism Squad) unearthed a fake birth certificate and AADHAR card racket to help illegal Rohingyas and Bangladeshis settle in the state.
Both Rohingyas and Bangladeshis have settled in Bharat illegally. They pose a huge internal security threat and many of them being sleeper cells of Islamic terrorist organizations cannot be ruled out. We have seen how many so-called Indians have come out in support of Pakistan openly following the Pahalgam attack. In such a scenario, it is difficult to believe Islamic Rohingyas and Bangladeshis would be pro-Bharat.
SC should apply same yardstick to cases involving illegal B’deshis & Rohingyas
I agree with the SC in as much as Bharat is certainly not a Dharmshala and it already has a large population to take care of. However, this brings us to a crucial question – why does Bharat become a Dharmshala for illegal Rohingyas and Bangladeshis? Why does the apex court not take a tough stance when it comes to these two communities? Why does it instantly entertain pleas by ‘activists’ fighting for illegal Rohingyas and Bangladeshis despite numerous pending cases? Why does it conveniently overlook the internal security threat posed by the huge number of these two communities of illegal refugees belonging to a hostile Islamic nation?
The illegal Bangladeshis and Rohingyas threat is huge. However, the usual suspects, so-called human rights activists, have begun lobbying for Rohingyas after a group of them were deported. These are those who have had the SC doors open at midnight for a terrorist!
Harsh Mander wanted to know if Bharat couldn’t take in 22000 Rohingya refugees. Well, the SC would do well to remind him that Bharat is no Dharmshala. As Justice Datta said we already have 140 crore people to take care of and hence, forget 22,000 refugees, Bharat won’t be able to take care of even 22 of these. As Justice Datta advised the Sri Lankan refugee, they should tell Mander in no uncertain terms that these 22000 should seek refuge in some other country.
Suprisingly, the SC displayed judicial clarity and institutional restraint while dealing with the case of 43 Rohingya refugees. The writ petition filed by activists sought to sensationalise the deportation. However, the SC refused to be swayed by what Justice Surya Kant termed as a “very beautifully crafted story” with “absolutely no material” to support its outlandish narrative. “The Supreme Court, raising eyebrows, noted a “serious dispute” over whether the Rohingyas could even be classified as refugees. It clubbed the petition with other ongoing cases on their deportation and scheduled a crucial hearing for July 31,” noted OpIndia.
The SC’s refusal to give in to emotional blackmail and decide matters based on truth and evidence gives us hope. Human rights activism cannot come at the cost of national security.
(Featured Image Source: SwarajyaMag)
