Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The issue of illegal migrants has become a pressing topic of discussion in recent times. In the instant case the plea of 65 Indian-origin refugees who had escaped from Sri Lanka decades ago came to the forefront. The petition was before the Madurai Bench of the Court in which it was stated that the ancestors of the petitioners were taken to Sri Lanka and they suffered immense discrimination there, which led them to flee and return to India between 1983 and 1985.The petitioners were lodged in Refugee camps in Tamil Nadu, predominantly in Trichy apart from camps in Madurai, Perambalur, Karur, Mandapam. They moved the High Court that they be guarded from being sent back.The Government also gave an undertaking before the High Court that these refugees would not be forcibly sent back to Sri Lanka.The petitioners eventually sought Indian citizenship. However, when the Government failed to respond to their plea, they were constrained to move the High Court again to intervene in the matter.
The Petitioners contended that they were geological Indians who were native to Tamil Nadu. The State as well as the Central government contended that they could not claim citizenship as a right, as it fell within the domain of State policy. The Central Government pointed out that it has the discretion to grant or refuse an application for grant of Indian citizenship. It was said that the petitioners were illegal migrants and hence they did not possess any valid travel documents at the time of entry into India. Although the petitioners were illegal migrants, however the Court stated that the State has the implied power to relax the technical rigours of Section 5 of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 which prescribes the eligibility for obtaining Indian Citizenship.However, whether or not such relaxation would be appropriate depends on the facts and circumstances as well.
Justice Swaminathan also pointed out that, even illegal migrants were entitled to the fundamental right to life under Article 21.The Court also pointed out that actions by both the petitioner-refugees as well as the Government made for a strong case to allot the petitioners citizenship status in India.In this regard, the Court highlighted that the petitioners have amply demonstrated that they have formed the intention of making India their permanent home. Further, the Court took note of the undertaking given by the Government of India that these refugees would not be deported back to Sri Lanka.
Further, the Court has urged the Government to take a humanitarian and empathical approach to the entire situation of the petitioners. However, Justice Swaminathan refrained from mandating that the petitioners be necessarily granted citizenship as a measure of judicial discipline.
86540
103860
630
114
59824