The Delhi High Court recently held that foreigners cannot claim the right to reside and settle in India stating that their fundamental rights are limited to protection and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The court observed: “Fundamental Right of any such foreigner or suspected foreigner is limited to the one declared under Article 21 of Constitution of India i.e. Fundamental Right for life and liberty and there is nothing which may suggest that his liberty has been curtailed in an illegal or unlawful manner.”
A division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain delivered the ruling on January 9 while dismissing a habeas corpus petition filed by the uncle of Azal Chakma, a suspected Bangladeshi national. The petition argued that Chakma’s detention was illegal and lacked proper authorisation.
The Foreign Regional Registration Office (FRRO) claimed that Chakma was caught and taken into custody at IGI Airport in October 2022 during immigration clearance while attempting to depart for Bangladesh using a fraudulently obtained Indian Passport. Allegations included Chakma’s unlawful entry into India through a porous border and the deceitful procurement of Indian documents.
Also Read: Nyaya Sanhita and Swaraj in legal ideas
According to petitioners, Chakma was apprehended at the Indira Gandhi International (IGI) Airport in Delhi in October 2022. The petitioner contends that Chakma possesses Indian citizenship by birth, having undergone his initial education in Gomati, Tripura, and later in Shillong, Meghalaya.
It was argued that Chakma has resided in India throughout his life, with brief exceptions, and holds valid Indian documents, including a passport, Aadhaar card, PAN card, and a driving license. Additionally, the petitioner added that Chakma is actively engaged in business in Kolkata.
Also Read:‘Attempting suicide, putting blame on husband extreme cruelty’: Delhi High Court
Notably, Chakma’s nephew has been in the purportedly illegal custody of the Foreign Regional Registration Office (FRRO) since October 13, 2022.
In dismissing the plea, the court noted lack of a satisfactory response regarding Chakma’s documents and the passport issued by Bangladeshi authorities, while observing his failure to justify how and when he entered India after leaving for Dhaka with a Bangladeshi passport.
The bench blamed Chakma for his misery, stating that it was not a case of preventive detention, but rather a lawful restriction on his movements for deportation purposes.
Moreover, the court pointed out Chakma’s admission before Bangladeshi authorities, where he claimed Bangladeshi nationality in visa applications for India in 2010 and 2011,as a key reason preventing any argument about the end of his supposed Indian citizenship.
(With inputs from Live Law)