Madras High Court Affirms Non-Citizens' Right to File Writ Petitions Against State Actions
In a landmark judgment, the Madras High Court has delivered a significant ruling on the legal standing of non-citizens in India, particularly refugees, to challenge state actions through writ petitions. The court quashed the termination of a State Bank of India (SBI) employee, who is a registered Sri Lankan Tamil refugee, emphasizing that her removal solely based on non-citizenship was arbitrary and discriminatory.
Court Rejects SBI's Preliminary Objection on Locus Standi
Justice Hemant Chandangoudar, presiding over the case, allowed the plea filed by the Tamil Sri Lankan refugee, who had contested SBI's 2013 order terminating her services as an officer in marketing and recovery. The petitioner was appointed to this position in 2008 and had served diligently for several years before her termination.
The court firmly rejected SBI's preliminary objection that a non-citizen lacks the locus standi to maintain a writ petition. In its detailed order, the court clarified that while non-citizens cannot invoke writ jurisdiction for enforcing fundamental rights under Articles 15, 16, and 19 of the Constitution, they are entitled to file a writ petition under Article 226 when state actions violate Articles 14 and 21.
"So long as the impugned action affects or infringes the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, a noncitizen, including a refugee, is entitled to seek redressal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India," the order explicitly stated, setting a crucial precedent for future cases involving foreign nationals and refugees in India.
Background of the Case: A Refugee's Journey and Employment
The petitioner entered India in 1990 at the age of five, fleeing the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. Since then, she has been a registered Sri Lankan Tamil refugee residing in Tamil Nadu. SBI appointed her after finding her suitable for the role, and she continued in service without issue for years.
However, during the process of permanent absorption, the bank scrutinized her documents and concluded that she was a Sri Lankan national, not eligible under the recruitment notification that prescribed Indian citizenship as a condition. Consequently, her services were terminated in June 2013, sparking the legal battle that led to this ruling.
Key Legal Findings and Implications
The court's findings highlighted several critical aspects of constitutional law:
- Certain fundamental rights, such as those under Articles 16 and 19, are exclusively available to citizens, but others, including the right to equality and protection from exploitation, are guaranteed to "all persons," not just citizens.
- The Supreme Court has previously recognized that foreigners can challenge state actions that adversely affect their life or personal liberty, subject to established legal procedures.
- In this case, the petitioner's termination was deemed arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Article 14, as it was based solely on her non-citizenship, despite her lawful residence in India under rehabilitation schemes for Sri Lankan Tamil refugees.
Moreover, the court noted that the application form did not have a specific column for disclosing citizenship or nationality, and no adverse inference could be drawn against the petitioner for non-disclosure. The absence of statutory provisions or service regulations expressly prohibiting the appointment of non-citizens to the post further weakened SBI's case.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's role in protecting the rights of vulnerable groups, including refugees, and reinforces the principle that arbitrary actions by state entities cannot stand unchallenged, regardless of citizenship status.
