Madras High Court
Gnanaprakasam vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 8 October, 2014
Equivalent citations: AIR 2015 MADRAS 65
Author: M.Sathyanarayanan
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, M.Sathyanarayanan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.10.2014
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN
W.P.No.18373 of 2008
Gnanaprakasam .. Petitioner
vs
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Chief Secretary,
Secretariat, St. George Fort, Chennai.
2.The Union of India,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block, New Delhi.
3.The Director General of Police,
Kamaraj Salai, Chennai.
4.The Special Commissioner and Transport
Commissioner, Chepauk, Chennai.
5.Tamil Nadu Engineering Admissions-2008,
Rep. by its Secretary, Anna University,
Chennai. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to ensure due protection guaranteed to the lives and liberty of the Sri Lankan Tamil refugees presently in Tamil Nadu under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and further and more fully ensuring the possession of driving licenses, Bank accounts, movable articles, immovable properties and educational rights and right to the freedom of movements.
For Petitioners .. Mr.K.Sakthivel
For Respondents .. Mr.S.T.S.Moorthy,
Govt. Pleader, for RR1, 3 and 4
.. Mr.C.R.Dhasarathan for R-2
* * * * *
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice) The writ petition, styled as a Public Interest Litigation, is filed by a Sri Lankan Tamil refugee. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner with his family was living in Mudur village at Sri Lanka and had to migrate to India on account of the prevalent situation. It is the case of the petitioner that he and similarly other persons have been living in India for the last 25 years (as on the date of filing of the petition). Their children have been studying in State Government schools, but their applications for engineering admissions have been rejected on the ground that they are not Indian citizens.
2.The petitioner seeks to invoke Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the International Convention/Treaty, as also the doctrine of Legitimate Expectations. The fact that India is not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention of 1951 and 1967 is stated to make no difference. The prayer made is that Tamil refugees should be entitled to driving licences, bank accounts, movable articles, educational rights and immovable properties.
3.To support the contentions as urged in the petition, learned counsel has referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in National Human Rights Commission vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 1234 and in Chaiman, Railway Board vs. Chandrima Das, (2000) 2 SCC 465.
4.On the other hand, the stand of the Government of India / 2nd respondent is that the refugees are being looked after and they are staying in camps. The Government of Tamil Nadu has permitted them to work locally between 6.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. to supplement the cash dole extended to them. They have been permitted to open bank accounts only to self-help group members and not for routing/diverting any foreign money, as that would fall foul of the regulations of Reserve Bank of India. The acquisition of immovable properties is stated to be impermissible without prior permission of the Reserve Bank of India. It is specifically stated that the Constitution of India is applicable only to the Indian citizens and not to a foreigner settled as refugee, by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Louis De Raedt vs. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 554. The Government of India concedes the right of a foreigner under Article 21 of the Constitution for life and liberty, but that would not include the right to reside and settle in this country. In view of the peculiar situation, the Sri Lankan refugees are being provided support.
5.The State Government has filed a separate affidavit setting out the facilities, which already stand extended to the refugees. The same, as set out in para 3 of the affidavit, reads as under:
3. ... The Government provides rice to the Refugees at the rate of 0.57 paise per kg. through the Fair Price shops whereas rice to the people living Below Poverty Line in Tamil Nadu is provided at the rate of Rs.1.00 per kg. In addition to the above, the Government provide the following facilities to the Sri Lankan camp refugees:
1) All the refugees residing in Refugee Camps are provided with necessary facilities such as accommodation, free electricity, drinking water, toilet facilities, basic health facilities, link-road facility and transport facility at free of cost and the same is administered by concerned Panchayat.
2) The Cash Doles are given to the Sri Lankan refugees in camps at the following rates as per Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, (FFR), New Delhi, vide Lr.No.3/4/2003/RHI/MD dated 11.7.2008 with effect from 1.8.2006.
Head of the Family : Rs.400/- p.m. Other Adults : Rs.288/- p.m. (12 years & above) 1st Child : Rs.180/- p.m. Other children : Rs.90/- p.m.
3) Clothing materials are distributed every year free of cost.
4) Blankets are distributed to every adult once in two years.
5) Either items of utensils are supplied to the camp refugees once in two years free of cost.
6) Free education upto Plus Two level with free Text Books, Note Books, free uniforms, free noon-meals and free bus pass from camp to school. Free Bi-cycles are given to Plus One Students.
7) Dr.Muthulakshmi Reddy financial assistance scheme is also extended to the pregnant Sri Lankan Tamil refugee women and they are given Rs.1,000/- per month for six months.
8) Integrated Child Development Scheme is also extended to the Sri Lankan Refugees.
9) Free medical facilities are also given to the camp refugees.
6.It has also been stated in the affidavit that public transport is arranged, opening of bank accounts for self-help group members is permitted, etc. Qua immovable property, the stand is the same as of the Union of India.
7.The disturbing aspect, which is pointed out, is that as per the report of the Inspector General of Police, some of the refugees are proving to be a source of supplying links to the LTTE and are also indulging with such groups, misusing the permission which is granted for employment in local vicinity. The driving licence sourced by them is then used for illicit transport of logistics materials to LTTE and it is thus that the licences were decided to be withdrawn as per law. However, it has been decided to follow the procedures, listed in para 5 of the affidavit, in regard to the driving licence issued to Sri Lankan refugees in the Government Order dated 29.07.2008. Thus, where the 'Q' branch of the Police Department gives the report that such refugees are not involved in unlawful activities, their licences are not cancelled.
8.As far as the right to higher education is concerned, a reference has been made to the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.26463 of 2003, dated 21.11.2003. In terms thereof, no seats were provided to the Sri Lankan refugees during the academic year 2003-2004. Challenge was repelled by this Court and it was left to the Government authorities to decide the issue. The request made by the Government of Tamil Nadu in this behalf was rejected by the Government of India.
9.We have given a thought to the matter. We are of the view that the very maintainability of the P.I.L. filed on behalf of Sri Lankan citizens is in question. Not only that, the petitioner seems to be confusing the issue by claiming equality of rights with citizens of the country, something which is not permissible. There cannot be an absolute constitutional protection for a non-citizen by extending all the provisions of the Constitution of India to him.
10.The aspect urged qua issuance of licence has already been dealt with in the aforesaid affidavits to show that the matter concerns security of the State and there also, on proper verification, licences have been permitted. As regards higher education, there is no separate reservation nor can a parity be claimed in view of the judicial pronouncement referred to supra.
11.The judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not apply in the facts of the case. National Human Rights Commission vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh 's case, (supra), dealt with certain protections provided under Section 6A of the Citizenship Act itself. It is in that context that certain observations are made, where a cut-off date was provided, giving them the entitlement to apply for citizenship. In Chairman, Railway Board vs. Chandrima Das (supra), the matter was of a Bangladesh refugee, who was raped and the grant of compensation on account of violation of the right to live with human dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The aspect of security of State being important has been emphasized in that judgment, as even Part III of the Constitution of India does not contain absolute rights.
12.In our view, the stand of the respondents shows that assistance is being provided to the Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka, but they want more, as urged by the petitioner. There is no intrinsic right much less any constitutional right in this behalf, as their basic needs are being looked after, despite being refugees, in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is for the concerned Governments to decide whether any modified or further facilities are to be provided or not.
13.For all the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition.
14.Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
(S.K.K., CJ.) (M.S.N.,J.)
08.10.2014
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
sra
The Hon'ble Chief Justice
and
M.Sathyanarayanan, J.
(sra)
To
1.The Chief Secretary to
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, St. George Fort, Chennai.
2.The Secretary, Union of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block, New Delhi.
3.The Director General of Police,
Kamaraj Salai, Chennai.
4.The Special Commissioner and Transport
Commissioner, Chepauk, Chennai.
W.P.No.18373 of 2008
08.10.2014