Foreigners Can't Claim Right To Reside And Settle In India, Their Fundamental Rights Limited To Article 21: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that foreigners cannot claim right to reside and settle in India and their fundamental rights are limited to protection of life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

“We may also note that foreign national cannot claim that he has right to reside and settle in India in terms of Article 19 (1) (e) of Constitution of India,” a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain said.

The court added: “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.”

The court dismissed a habeas corpus plea claiming that a Bangladeshi national named Azal Chakma was illegally detained without authority in India. The plea was moved by Chakma's maternal uncle.

The Foreign Regional Registration Office claimed that Chakma was apprehended at IGI Airport in October 2022 during immigration clearance when he was attempting to depart for Bangladesh on the strength of fraudulently obtained Indian Passport.

It was alleged that Chakma entered India illegally through porous border and managed to obtain Indian documents in fraudulent and dishonest manner.

While dismissing the plea, the court said that no plausible response was given regarding the said documents and the passport issued to Chakma by the Bangladeshi authorities and that how and when he entered India after he had gone to Dhaka on the basis of Bangladeshi passport.

The bench observed that Chakma himself is to be blamed for his miseries as he has failed to explain as to how he came back to India when he had left India on a Bangladeshi passport.

“It is not a case of preventive detention. His movements have been restricted in accordance with law so that he can be deported back,” the court said.

It added: “As per his own admission made before the Bangladeshi authorities when he had applied for visa for India way back in the year 2010 and 2011, he claimed himself to be a Bangladeshi national by birth and in such a situation, there is no question of termination of his alleged Indian citizenship which he never seemed to have acquired.”

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. S. Narayan, Mr. Arvind Kumar Ojha, Mr. Manish Bhardwaj, Mr. Satish Chandra & Mr. Hari Kumar, Advocates

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, Advocate (CGSC) with Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, Advocate

Title: Kinadhan Chakma v Union of India and Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 47