Subaskaran, a Sri Lankan Tamil, was arrested in 2015 on charges that he was involved in a conspiracy to revive the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) — a banned militant group that had aimed to create a separate Tamil nation in Sri Lanka.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India on Monday clearly stated that India cannot act as a “dharamshala” (public shelter) for refugees from around the world, while rejecting a plea by a Sri Lankan Tamil national who was facing deportation after completing a jail sentence.
ALSO READ: Sri Lankan High Commission Provided Travel Document For Santhan, Convict In Rajiv Gandhi
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing the case of Subaskaran, a Sri Lankan Tamil who had challenged an order of the Madras High Court directing him to leave India immediately after serving a seven-year sentence under various laws including the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).
During the hearing, the Supreme Court made strong oral observations, asking “Is India to host refugees from all over the world? … This is not a Dharmshala that we can entertain foreign nationals from all over.”
Background
Subaskaran, a Sri Lankan Tamil, was arrested in 2015 on charges that he was involved in a conspiracy to revive the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) — a banned militant group that had aimed to create a separate Tamil nation in Sri Lanka.
In 2018, a trial court in Ramanathapuram convicted him under the UAPA, Passport Act, Foreigners Act, Poisons Act, and Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment.
Later in 2022, on appeal, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court reduced his sentence to seven years. The High Court also directed that after completing the sentence, he must “leave India without delay”, although it permitted him to stay in a refugee camp until his release.
After the High Court’s decision, Subaskaran’s wife made a representation to the Tamil Nadu Government requesting that he be released from the Trichy Special Camp and allowed to live peacefully with his family without being deported.
Since the government gave no reply, she moved the Madras High Court again to stop her husband’s deportation, but the court dismissed her plea. This led to the final appeal being filed before the Supreme Court.
Advocate R. Sudhakaran, appearing for Subaskaran, argued that he was “falsely and arbitrarily implicated” in the case and would face “torture” if sent back to Sri Lanka. The lawyer requested that Subaskaran be allowed to stay in India and “live in a refugee camp indefinitely.”
However, the Supreme Court refused to entertain the petition, and firmly stated that if Subaskaran’s life is truly in danger in Sri Lanka, then: “he should seek refugee status in another country.”
Advocate Vairawan AS also appeared for Subaskaran during the Supreme Court proceedings.
Case Name : SUBASKARAN @ JEEVAN @ RAJA @ PRABHA vs STATE | Diary No. 21310-2025
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
