- The Supreme Court of India issued a significant ruling on May 19, 2025, reigniting debates over the country’s deportation and refugee policies.
- The bench clarified that Article 19 applies only to Indian citizens, questioning Subaskaran’s right to settle in India.
- India is not a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol, leaving its refugee policy to be determined by domestic law and judicial discretion.
- The Supreme Court’s dismissal of Subaskaran’s appeal shows India’s circumspect approach to refugees prioritised national security and resource constraints over individual humanitarian concerns.
The Supreme Court of India made a significant ruling on May 19, 2025, which has reignited debates regarding the country’s deportation and refugee policies. Subaskaran, a Sri Lankan Tamil national and former LTTE member, tried to prevent his deportation after serving a seven-year sentence under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). The court’s decision to reject his plea and the harsh statement that “India is not a dharamshala” (a free shelter) for refugees highlight the intricate relationship between legal, humanitarian and geopolitical factors in India’s deportation policy.
The Subaskaran Case: A Personal and Political Conflict
Subaskaran, a Tamil national, filed a plea before the court. He was arrested in 2015 on suspicion of taking part in a scheme to revive the LTTE, a militant organisation that had sought to create an independent Tamil State in Sri Lanka. In 2018, a trial court in Ramanathapuram found him guilty under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Foreigners Act, the Passport Act and the UAPA. He was given a 10-year prison sentence. On appeal, the Madras High Court reduced his sentence to seven years in 2022. After he was released from prison, the High Court further mandated that he leave India immediately, though he was allowed to stay in a refugee camp until then.
After the High Court’s ruling, Subaskaran’s wife petitioned the Tamil Nadu government to free him from the Trichy Special Camp so he could live in peace with his family without having to leave India. She petitioned the Madras High Court to stop his husband’s deportation after the government failed to act on her representation, but her request was denied. As a result, Subaskaran filed a petition to the Supreme Court, arguing that he was falsely and arbitrarily implicated in the UAPA case and also challenged the deportation.
His legal team, led by Advocate R. Sudhakaran, contended that this prolonged detention violated his rights and that his refugee status justified protection under Indian Constitution, specifically Article 19 (1) (a) (d) i.e. freedom of speech and freedom to move freely throughout the territory of India and also Article 21i.e. right to life and personal liberty.
The Supreme Court, presided over by Justices Dipankar Datta and K Vinod Chandran, rejected these arguments. The bench clarified that Article 19 applies only to Indian citizens, questioning Subaskaran’s right to settle in India. Justice Datta’s statement, “We are struggling with a population of 140 crore. This is ‘not a dharamshala’ that we can entertain foreign citizens from all over, reflected the court’s prioritisation of citizens’ public interests over humanitarian claims. The bench recommended that Subaskaran seek shelter in another country, dismissing his plea and upholding the Madras High Court’s 2022 order for his deportation after serving his reduced seven-year sentence.
Sri Lankan Tamils in India: A Historical Context
The three main phases of Sri Lankan Tamil migration to India were 1964, 1983 and 2009. There was a first wave in 1964 following the Sirima-Shastri pact, which called for the return of 500,000 Tamils of Indian descent who were stateless to India and the granting of Sri Lankan citizenship to 300,000 of them. Many were descendants of indentured labourers brought by the British. A 1974 follow-up agreement aimed to settle the remaining 150,000, but the process remained deficient, leaving them stateless. The second wave began in 1983 as a result of the Black July anti-Tamil violence, which resulted in a mass migration to India and the deaths of over 3,000 Tamils. The final phases of the civil war, which ended in May 2009, saw the third and last major wave of Sri Lankan Tamils emigrating to India. In the name of eliminating the LTTE, Sri Lankan armed forces carried out intense military operations that led to the deaths of thousands of innocent Tamil civilians. Fleeing the violence and fearing persecution, many Tamils once again fled to India by sea. Those arriving during this period, as well as after the 1983 Black July riots, were often classified as “illegal immigrants”[1]. These refugees have long faced uncertainty, as India is not a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol, leaving refugee policy to domestic law and judicial discretion.
India’s Refugee Policy: Balancing Compassion and Sovereignty
India’s position remains an acute balancing between its humanitarian obligations, security concerns, and sovereignty interests. The “dharamshala” statement of the Supreme Court fits in with the interpretation of its more recent rulings, including that of May 8, 2025, when the court denied relief to Rohingya refugees and ruled that foreigners must be deported if they cannot be held legally in India under the Foreigners Act, 1946. Just as with the Rohingyas, the court’s deliberation on its population also featured in the narrative, an interminable object of discussion in judicial and policy spaces and highlighted the need to assist their population in states where resources are constrained. Still, India has historically shown sympathy for certain refugee groups and particularly the Sri Lankan Tamils, for cultural and linguistic connections with Tamil Nadu. The state government of Tamil Nadu has always provided support, including healthcare and education, to Sri Lankan Tamil refugees, and political leaders like Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin have advocated for their rights. Yet, cases involving security enterprises, similar to the LTTE confederations, frequently face stricter scrutiny, as seen in Subaskaran’s case and the deportation of 22 Indian citizens from Sri Lanka in April 2025 for visa violations.
Geopolitical Implications and Regional Dynamics
The Apex Court’s decision coincides with a changing phase in ties between India and Sri Lanka. PM Modi’s April 2025 visit to Colombo, marked by the signing of a defence pact along with a few key infrastructure projects that underscore India-Sri Lanka relations, speaks volumes in this respect[2]. Further, this bilateral defence pact can enkindle new flames in which the Lankan government may find itself compelled to hold an inimical strategic clasp with Indian interests, against which assuring China of its strategic interests shall be greatly complicated.
This is best evidenced by the assurance of Sri Lankan President Anura Kumara Dissanayake that no rendition of the Sri Lankan territory would take place against the security interests of India. Deporting Tamil nationals like Subaskaran will probably damage the image of India as an indigenous rights advocate for Tamils, where the issue of Tamil fishermen being detained and interned by the Sri Lankan Navy remains controversial.
The position of Sri Lanka on the Tamil issues is very complex. The government’s protest against a monument on Tamil genocide in Canada in May 2025 and its rejection of allegations relating to genocide provide an understanding of how sensitive the civil war legacy is[3].
Humanitarian and Legal Questions
Subaskaran’s case raises fundamental questions about the rights of refugees in India. His continued detention without initiating deportation proceedings for almost three years highlights bureaucratic delays and possible breaches of due process. The court dismissed his counsel’s invocation of Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty for all persons, not citizens only; no violation of established legal procedures was found. It is said to believe that India’s non-signatory status on the Refugee Convention renders refugees vulnerable, exposed to inconsistent treatment based on political and security considerations.
The court’s idea that Subaskaran go to another country and ask for refugee status does not address the real problems. For example, countries like the UK have made their visa rules stricter for Sri Lankans because of asylum issues, as reported in May 2025[4]. Also, his family’s settling in India makes it hard to move them, raising questions about the right thing to do in keeping families together and human protection.
Conclusion: A Test for India’s Refugee Framework
The Supreme Court’s dismissal of Subaskaran’s appeal shows India’s circumspect approach to refugees prioritised national security and resource constraints over individual humanitarian concerns. While the “dharamshala” analogy illustrates the challenges of hosting a large refugee populace, it risks simplifying a complex issue. Given their deep connections to India, Sri Lankan Tamils play a unique role in this conversation, and cases like Subaskaran’s highlight the necessity for a more open and consistent refugee policy. As India navigates its role as a regional power, it will continue to encounter significant challenges in balancing its humanitarian obligations with strategic priorities. It is essential to address these tensions with empathy and clarity, as shown by the experiences of individuals like Subaskaran, who find themselves caught between legal regulations and personal peril.
References:
- [1] https://www.statecraft.co.in/article/india-cannot-leave-its-sri-lankan-tamil-refugees-in-limbo-any-longer#:~:text=There%20are%20roughly%20100%2C000%20Sri,majority%20of%20them%20are%20Hindu.
- [2] https://www.mea.gov.in/bilateral-documents.htm?dtl/39377
- [3] https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/sri-lanka-summons-canadian-envoy-over-genocide-monument-in-ontario/3567712
- [4] https://iasservices.org.uk/uk-immigration-news-may-2025-update/
Megna Devkar is a Ph.D. Research Scholar at K.C. Law College with research and writing expertise in social, political, and legal issues. Views expressed are the author’s own.
Abhinav Sharma 
Pranav S 
Lakshmi Karlekar & HM Greeshma