The Supreme Court’s remark that “India is not a dharamshala that can accommodate refugees from all over the world” was made in the context of a case involving the detention of a Sri Lankan Tamil national seeking refugee status.
The Supreme court emphasized that India cannot be expected to host refugees indefinitely without proper legal frameworks or documentation. This observation aligns with the court’s stance in a related Rohingya case, where it stated that foreigners without valid documentation are subject to deportation.
The Central government has also noted that India is not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention, and UNHCR-issued identity cards may not guarantee legal stay. These remarks reflect the court’s position on balancing humanitarian concerns with national policy and legal obligations.
Information about case
The Supreme Court’s remark, “India is not a dharamshala that can accommodate refugees from all over the world,” was made during a hearing on April 24, 2025, in a case involving a 24-year-old Sri Lankan Tamil, S. Sathiya Seelan, detained at a special camp in Tiruchi, Tamil Nadu, since October 2022.
Seelan sought refugee status, claiming persecution in Sri Lanka and holding a UNHCR refugee card. The court, presided over by Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, was addressing his plea for release from detention.
Key Details of the Case:
Background: Seelan entered India in 2019 on a tourist visa, which expired, rendering him an illegal migrant. He was detained under the Foreigners Act for lacking valid documentation. His counsel argued he faced persecution in Sri Lanka due to his Tamil identity and sought refugee status, citing his UNHCR card.
Supreme Court’s Observations: The court questioned the legal basis for granting refugee status, noting India is not a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol.
It emphasized that India cannot indefinitely host refugees without a clear policy or legal framework, stating, “India is not a dharamshala.
“The court highlighted that UNHCR cards do not automatically confer legal rights to stay, as the government has the authority to deport foreigners without valid documents.
It referenced a prior Rohingya case (April 8, 2021), where it ruled that illegal migrants have no fundamental right to reside in India and can be deported, subject to procedural safeguards.
Government’s Stance: The Centre informed the court that it has no objection to refugees staying if they have valid documentation. However, it reiterated that India lacks a domestic refugee law, and UNHCR cards are not binding. The government is also engaging with Sri Lanka to assess repatriation possibilities.
Court’s Directions: The bench directed the Centre to clarify its policy on granting refugee status and whether Seelan could be released from detention. The case was scheduled for further hearing after two weeks, with interim orders prohibiting coercive actions against Seelan.
Context: The case reflects broader issues with India’s ad-hoc refugee policy. Over 300,000 refugees and asylum-seekers, including Sri Lankan Tamils, Rohingya, and others, reside in India, often in legal limbo. Tamil Nadu alone hosts around 90,000 Sri Lankan Tamil refugees, with 58,000 in camps.
Legal and Policy Implications:
No Refugee Law: India lacks a specific law for refugees, treating them under the Foreigners Act, 1946, which does not distinguish between illegal migrants and refugees.
President Draupadi Murmu Asked 14 Questions To Supreme Court
Judicial Precedents: The court has consistently upheld the government’s right to deport undocumented foreigners (e.g., Rohingya cases) but has also emphasized procedural fairness, such as informing the concerned country’s consulate and verifying persecution claims.
Humanitarian vs. Sovereignty: The remark underscores the tension between humanitarian obligations and national sovereignty, especially given India’s non-signatory status to the Refugee Convention.
For further details, the case can be tracked via the Supreme Court’s website (case number not specified in available data).