Introduction: Balancing Kindness with National Duty
In a recent and important decision, the Supreme Court of India said no to a Sri Lankan man who asked to stay in the country after finishing his jail sentence. Years ago, he was convicted of having ties to the outlawed LTTE.
The Court made it clear that although India is a nation known for helping others, it cannot become a haven for everyone, especially those who have broken the law, despite his claims that he feared for his life if sent back home. This ruling emphasizes how India must balance compassion with prioritizing its own national security and interests. Subaskaran, the central figure in the case, had already been convicted because of his ties to the banned LTTE. He requested to remain in India for humanitarian reasons, but the Court firmly upheld the rule of law and said “no.”
“India, with its 1.4 billion citizens, cannot become a dharamshala for people across the globe,” the Court remarked during the proceedings.
The Court’s Suggestion: Examine Another Country
In the end, the Supreme Court recognized Subaskaran’s reservations about returning to Sri Lanka. But the judges made it clear that staying in India was not an option. If he truly felt unsafe, they suggested that he apply for asylum in another country, where they might be able to accept his case without breaking their own laws.
The Court expressed sympathy for his plight, but it also made it abundantly evident that feelings could not take precedence over the nation’s legal obligations.
- The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA)
- The Passport Act
- The Foreigners Act
- The Poisons Act
- The Indian Penal Code (IPC)
In 2022, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court lowered his initial ten-year sentence to seven years. When his sentence was up, the same bench had also ordered his deportation.
A Plea for Safety and Family: Rejected
After serving his term, Subaskaran sought permission to remain in India, claiming that returning to Sri Lanka would endanger his life.He also said he wanted to stay in India so he could be with his family and asked the Court to look at his situation with compassion.
But the Supreme Court didn’t agree with his request. The judges gave a clear and firm “no.”
“Sympathy cannot replace sovereignty,” they said.
“The law cannot be applied differently just because someone asks for special treatment.”
The Court acknowledged that personal struggles are real, but stressed that rules—especially those about immigration and national security—must be followed by everyone, no matter what their situation is.
India’s Balancing Act
India has always welcomed people fleeing persecution, conflict, or violence, whether they are Tibetans, Sri Lankan Tamils, or Rohingyas. A fundamental aspect of the country’s identity is compassion. But this instance shows that there are boundaries.
Helping others does not mean breaking the law. The nation must draw a line when it comes to criminal records, particularly when the charges are serious. The Court’s message was unambiguous: compassion is vital, but it must be weighed against the necessity of upholding the law and safeguarding national security.
“A person with a tainted background cannot be allowed to misuse India’s generosity,” the bench noted.
The Court’s Suggestion:
In the end, the Supreme Court recognized Subaskaran’s reservations about returning to Sri Lanka. But the judges made it clear that staying in India was not an option. If he genuinely feared for his safety, the Court said he could try applying for asylum in another country—somewhere that might be in a better position to consider his case without going against its own laws.
It was a gentle but firm response. The Court showed it understood his concerns, but also made it clear that emotions alone can’t be a reason to set aside the law.
AUTHOR
Pragya Jakhar is a second-year Lovely Professional University student pursuing a B.A. LL.B. (Hons.). Human rights and constitutional law particularly interest her. Pragya likes to write about legal subjects and is committed to improving and making the legal system more accessible to all.
Throughout the years, she has written numerous articles that examine important legal issues, and her growing comprehension of the operation of the law, both in books and in practice, allows her to contribute perceptive opinions to academic and policy discussions. She enjoys keeping up with news and significant court decisions.