The Delhi High Court was hearing a habeas corpus petition moved by a man who alleged that his nephew Azal Chakma, a suspected Bangladeshi national, was in illegal custody of the Foreign Regional Registration Office. A foreigner cannot claim the right to reside in India under Article 19(1)(e) of the Constitution of India, the Delhi High Court recently said. Article 19(1)(e) states that all citizens shall have the right to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain made the observation in its January 9 order while dismissing a habeas corpus petition moved by the uncle of one Azal Chakma, a suspected Bangladeshi national, which claimed that Chakma’s detention was illegal and without authority. The bench observed, “Prayer in the present writ petition is limited to relief related to habeas corpus and there is nothing which may indicate that detention of Mr. Azal Chakma is illegal. Moreover, his movement has been restricted so that he remains available for deportation and such restriction cannot be said to be illegal…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.” The high court further referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Hans Muller of Nurenburg Vs. Superintendent, Presidency Jail, Calcutta to state that the apex court had observed that the power of the Indian government to expel foreigners is absolute and unlimited and there is no provision in the Constitution fettering such discretion. “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 bench further underscored. The bench observed that Chakma himself is to be “blamed for his miseries” since he failed to explain how he came back to India when he had left the country on a Bangladeshi passport. It further noted that it was not a case of preventive detention, rather the petitioner’s movements were restricted in accordance with law so that he could be deported back.

According to the petitioner, Chakma was apprehended at the Indira Gandhi International (IGI) Airport in Delhi in October 2022. According to the plea, the man has Indian citizenship by birth and had his initial education in Gomati in Tripura and later in Shillong, Meghalaya. The petitioner argued that Chakma had lived in India all his life except for a very brief period and he holds an Indian passport, Aadhaar card, PAN card and driving licence and is running a business in Kolkata. The petitioner claimed that his nephew has been in illegal custody of the Foreign Regional Registration Office (FRRO) since October 13, 2022. Meanwhile, the FRRO contended that on the intervening night of October 12 and October 13, 2022, Chakma was apprehended at IGI Airport, Delhi during immigration clearance when he was attempting to depart for Dhaka using a fraudulently obtained Indian passport. It was in the aforesaid backdrop that his movements were restricted, the FRRO said. It was claimed that Chakma had left India on a Bangladeshi passport in June 2016 and it was not known how he subsequently entered India.

According to respondents, Chakma possibly entered India “illegally through porous border and thereafter managed to obtain Indian documents in fraudulent and dishonest manner”. The FRRO said that Chakma’s Indian passport, “which he had obtained in a fraudulent manner”, has already been revoked by the Indian authorities on June 21, 2023. It was also claimed by FRRO that the High Commission of Bangladesh had already issued travel permit documents for Chakma’s repatriation and he would be deported as soon as respondents got confirmed air tickets for him from the Bangladesh embassy. “Documents collected by the respondents clearly indicate that he was holding Bangladeshi passport and had come to India multiple times on the basis of such passport. When he had applied for visa, he claimed himself to be a Bangladeshi national by birth and also claimed that his parents were also Bangladeshi citizens. Petitioner has not given any response, much less a plausible one, to the aforesaid documents and the passport issued to him by the Bangladeshi authorities. He has also failed to apprise as to how and when he entered India after he had gone to Dhaka on the basis of Bangladeshi passport. There is no qualm about the provisions contained under Citizenship Act, 1955 as well as the Foreigners Order, 1948 but fact remains that there is nothing which may indicate that detention of Mr. Azal Chakma is illegal or without any authority,” the bench thereafter observed.