(UTV|COLOMBO) – Questioning the rationale behind deporting a man to Sri Lanka, the Madras High Court has summoned the Regional Foreigners’ Registration Officer to appear before it and explain the procedure followed in such cases, the Press Trust of India (PTI) reported.
The issue pertains to a habeas corpus plea moved by K. Sundar Lingam, whose son was deported to Sri Lanka.
A habeas corpus is \Ra petition filed to ensure a person under arrest is brought before a Court to determine if the detention is legal.
Lingam submitted that he is a Sri Lankan national who escaped to India in 1987 in view of the then ongoing ethnic crisis in the island nation.
His son, S Anand, was born at Thirumala Devasam Medical College and Hospital, Alappuzha District, Kerala on 25 December, 1992.
He completed his school education in a private school in Chennai and in 2013, he went to Australia. He came back to India on 27 October, 2018.
The petitioner said that ‘To his shock and surprise” his son was detained by Indian Immigration Authorities on his return and was deported to Sri Lanka, following which he moved the High Court.
In response to the plea, the Immigration Department submitted that Anand entered Australia illegally by boat and sought asylum there. However, the Australian Government rejected his plea.
Anand, instead of going back to Sri Lanka, went to the Indian Embassy at Melbourne and fraudulently obtained an Indian Emergency Certificate on 21 September, claiming to be an Indian national and arrived from Australia on September 27, the Authorities said.
The Sri Lankan Embassy was later duly informed and he was sent to Sri Lanka, the Immigration Authorities said.
Recording the submissions, a division bench of Justices N. Kirubakaran and Abdul Quddhose wondered how Anand was allowed to move out of the refugee camp in Australia and reach the Indian Embassy.
“If the asylum application of Anand was rejected by the Australian Government, he would not be allowed to move out of the refugee camp/asylum seekers camp and there is no scope for the asylum seekers to come out of the camp.
“Therefore, prima facie it is doubtful as to whether the asylum application of Anand was rejected, as contended by the Authorities,” the Court said.
If the petitioner’s son had fraudulently obtained an Indian Emergency Certificate from the Indian Embassy at Melbourne, claiming to be an Indian national and travelled to India, the usual course should be to send him back to the country from where he has travelled, the bench said.
However, surprisingly, the Authorities had sent him to Sri Lanka after informing the Sri Lankan Embassy and obtaining an emergency certificate.
“When the petitioner’s son was born and brought up and educated in India and he has got no connection at all with Sri Lanka, it is not known as to how the authorities had deported the petitioner’s son to Sri Lanka,” the Bench added.
[alert color=”faebcc” icon=”fa-commenting”]Keeping up to date with breaking news while you are on the move is now simple with UTV Alerts [textmarker color=”8a6d3b”]Type REG UTV and send to 77000[/textmarker] on your Dialog, Airtel, or Hutch mobile connection[/alert]
