India is not a dharamshala, or a public shelter, that can accommodate refugees from around the world, the Supreme Court said on Monday while declining to intervene in the detention of a Sri Lankan Tamil national, Live Law reported.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and K Vinod Chandran was hearing a petition challenging a Madras High Court order that directed the Sri Lankan Tamil man to leave India immediately after serving his seven-year sentence in a case under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.

“Is India to host refugees from all over the world?” Live Law quoted Datta as saying. “We are struggling with 140 crore. This is not a dharmshala that we can entertain foreign nationals from all over.”

The Sri Lankan man and two others were arrested in 2015 by the Q Branch, which monitors activities linked to Left-wing extremism and threats to internal security, on suspicion of being operatives of the banned outfit Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam was a separatist militant group that sought to establish an independent Tamil state in northern and eastern Sri Lanka.

In 2018, a trial court convicted him under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act for being a member of the banned organisation. The Madras High Court reduced his sentence to seven years in 2022 but ordered that he be moved to a refugee camp after his release and deported at the earliest, Live Law reported.

On Monday, the petitioner’s counsel told the bench that he was a Sri Lankan Tamil man who had entered India on a visa.

“What is your right to settle here?” Datta asked. In response, the petitioner’s counsel said that he was a refugee and his wife and children were already living in India, Live Law reported.

The counsel added that his wife was suffering from several health issues and his son had a congenital heart condition.

The petitioner also stated that he had participated in the Sri Lankan civil war in 2009 as a member of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and was “black-gazetted”, or blacklisted, by the Sri Lankan government.

If sent back, he would be arrested and tortured, added the man’s counsel, Live Law reported.

In response, Datta said: “Go to some other country.”

The judge added that in this case, Article 21 of the Constitution, which pertains to the protection of life and personal liberty, had not been violated since the petitioner’s liberty was curtailed in accordance with the procedures established under law, Live Law reported.

Datta also noted that the fundamental right to reside and settle in India under Article 19 applied exclusively to Indian citizens.

Article 19 protects certain fundamental rights related to freedom of speech, assembly, association, movement, residence, and profession.

The development comes two days after the Supreme Court questioned a petition claiming that the Indian government had forcibly deported 43 Rohingya refugees to Myanmar by pushing them into international waters.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh had declined the petitioner’s request for an urgent hearing into the matter. Citing an order passed by another bench on May 8, it rejected the request to pass an interim order halting the deportation of Rohingyas.