Read Time: 04 minutes
The bench was hearing a habeas corpus plea filed by the family of Azal Chakma, a suspected Bangladesh national who was apprehended at the Indira Gandhi International Airport in October 2022
The Delhi High Court has clarified that foreign nationals cannot assert a right to reside or settle in India under Article 19(1)(e) of the Constitution of India.
The division bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Manoj Jain highlighted that the fundamental rights accorded to foreigners, or suspected foreigners, are confined solely to the right to life and liberty as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.
The court said, "We may also note that a foreign national cannot claim that he has the right to reside and settle in India in terms of Article 19(1)(e) of the Constitution of India... Fundamental Right of any such foreigner or suspected foreigner is limited to the one declared under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, i.e., Fundamental Right for life and liberty."
The bench relied on a pivotal 1955 judgment from the Supreme Court in Hans Muller of Nurenburg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail, Calcutta, wherein the apex court affirmed that "the power of the Government of India to expel foreigners is absolute and unlimited, and there is no provision in the Constitution fettering such discretion."
The bench was hearing a habeas corpus plea filed by the family of Azal Chakma, a suspected Bangladesh national who was apprehended at the Indira Gandhi International Airport in October 2022.
Chakma was accused of traveling to India on a Bangladeshi passport and subsequently obtaining Indian documents, including a passport, through fraudulent means.
The Indian authorities revoked the passport, and Chakma's movements were restricted under Section 3(2)(e) of the Foreigners Act of 1946, read with Section 11(2) of the Foreigners Order of 1948.
The court was informed that the High Commission of Bangladesh had issued travel permit documents for Chakma's repatriation, and he would be deported upon confirmation of an air ticket from the Embassy of Bangladesh.
After considering the case, the court found no evidence of illegal detention, asserting that Chakma bore responsibility for his situation as he failed to explain his re-entry into India after leaving the country on a Bangladeshi passport.
Consequently, court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Kinadhan Chakma v Union of India and Ors.
Please Login or Register
