The Delhi High Court ruled that Article 19(1) (e) of the Constitution does not grant a foreign national the right to live or settle in India. The right to life and liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is the only set of fundamental rights that apply to foreigners or those suspected of being foreigners, according to a Division Bench comprising Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Manoj Jain.
It should be noted that Article 19(1) (e) of the Indian Constitution prohibits foreign nationals from claiming they have the right to live and settle in India. Any such foreigner’s or suspected foreigner’s fundamental right is restricted to the one stated in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which is the fundamental right to life and liberty, the court mentioned.
The Bench also referred to the 1955 judgement of the Supreme Court in Hans Muller of Nurenburg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail, and Calcutta, wherein the apex court observed that “the power of the Government of India to expel foreigners is absolute and unlimited, and there is no provision in the Constitution fettering such discretion.”
As a result, the court denied the family’s request for habeas corpus after Azal Chakma, a suspected national of Bangladesh, was detained in October 2022 at Delhi’s Indira Gandhi International Airport (IGI Airport). He was accused of using a Bangladeshi passport to enter India in the past, but subsequently obtained Indian documents including his passport by deception. The passport was eventually cancelled by Indian officials. Chakma’s movements have been restricted, according to Section 3(2) (e) of the Foreigners Act of 1946, read with Section 11(2) of the Foreigners Order of 1948.
The Bangladeshi High Commission had already provided travel permits for Chakma’s return, and the authorities would deport him as soon as they received a confirmed airline ticket from the Bangladeshi Embassy, the Bench was informed. After reviewing the case, the Court found that there was no evidence to suggest that Chakma was being held illegally and that, given he had fled the country using a Bangladeshi passport, he alone should be held accountable for his suffering.
The court denied the petition as a result. Kinadhan Chakma (uncle of Azal Chakma) was represented by solicitors S Narayan, Arvind Kumar Ojha, Manish Bhardwaj, Satish Chandra, and Hari Kumar. Representing the FRRO were attorneys Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy and Satish Kumar, as well as Central Government Standing Counsel Anurag Ahluwalia.
