Citizenship Not a Bar to Article 226 Relief: Madras HC Says Refugees Can Invoke Articles 14, 21

The Madras High Court has held that citizenship is not a bar to invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 where State action is alleged to violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, ruling that a non-citizen, including a refugee, is entitled to seek judicial redress against arbitrary or discriminatory action.

The bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar observed that the constitutional protection of equality before law and the right to life and personal liberty extends to all persons and not merely citizens. Court clarified that while rights under Articles 15, 16 and 19 are confined to citizens, a foreign national or refugee can maintain a writ petition if the impugned action is alleged to be arbitrary, unreasonable or discriminatory, thereby infringing Articles 14 or 21.

Applying this principle, court rejected the State Bank of India’s objection on maintainability and held that the writ petition filed by a Sri Lankan Tamil refugee challenging her termination from service was maintainable in law. Court noted that the petitioner’s challenge was founded on alleged discrimination and arbitrariness, and not on a claim to rights exclusively reserved for citizens.

The case pertained to terimination of one G. Thirukalyanamalar, a registered Sri Lankan Tamil refugee, who was appointed in 2008 as Officer–Marketing and Recovery (Rural) pursuant to a recruitment notification issued by SBI in 2007. Though the notification stipulated Indian citizenship as an eligibility condition, Thirukalyanamalar was selected, appointed on a contractual basis, and continued in service uninterruptedly.

During the pendency of her employment, SBI framed a policy for permanent absorption of Officers–Marketing and Recovery (Rural), subject to performance benchmarks. Thirukalyanamalar met the prescribed criteria and was included in the final list of selected candidates. However, during document verification, the bank noticed that she was a Sri Lankan national and not an Indian citizen, following which her services were terminated by an order dated June 28, 2013.

Challenging the termination, Thirukalyanamalar submitted that she had entered India as a child refugee in 1990 due to ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka, had completed her education in Tamil Nadu, and was a registered refugee whose residence in India was lawful. She argued that the application form did not contain a specific column requiring disclosure of citizenship and that she had disclosed her place of birth as Colombo, Sri Lanka.

The bank contended that public employment was restricted to citizens and that Thirukalyanamalar had no enforceable right to continue in service. It also argued that a non-citizen could not invoke constitutional remedies in matters relating to employment.

Court, however, noted that Thirukalyanamalar’s stay in India stood regularised under the statutory framework governing Sri Lankan Tamil refugees and could not be characterised as illegal. It further observed that she had been appointed through a regular recruitment process, had continued in service for several years under interim protection of the court, and had earned incentives for performance during her tenure.

Holding that the termination was founded solely on non-citizenship and was effected after long and continuous service, court found the action to be arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14. The impugned termination order was accordingly set.

Court clarified that it had not examined the broader validity of restricting bank employment to Indian citizens and that the decision was rendered on the peculiar facts of the case, without laying down a general precedent.

Case Title: G.Thirukalyanamalar vs. State Bank of India and Another

Order Date: January 23, 2026

Bench: Justice Hemant Chandangoudar