Foreigners cannot claim right to reside or settle in India; their rights limited to life and liberty: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently held that a foreign national cannot claim right to reside or settle in India under Article 19(1)(e) of the Constitution [Kinadhan Chakma v Union of India and Ors]. .A Division Bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Manoj Jain observed that fundamental rights of foreigners or a suspected foreigner is only limited to right to life and liberty as declared 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… 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…” the Court said.The Bench also referred to the 1955 judgement of the Supreme Court in Hans Muller of Nurenburg v Superintendent, Presidency Jail, Calcutta wherein the apex court had 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”..The Court, therefore, rejected the habeas corpus plea filed by the family of a suspected Bangladesh national named Azal Chakma who was apprehended at the Indira Gandhi International Airport (IGI Airport) in Delhi in October 2022. It was alleged that he had earlier travelled to India on Bangladeshi passport but later obtained Indian documents (including passport) fraudulently. The Indian authorities later revoked the passport.The Court was told that Chakma’s movements have been restricted under Section 3 (2) (e) of the Foreigners Act of 1946 read with Section 11 (2) of the Foreigners Order of 1948.The Bench was informed that the High Commission of Bangladesh had already issued travel permit documents for Chakma’s repatriation and he would be deported as soon as the authorities get confirmed air-ticket for him from the Embassy of Bangladesh..The Court considered the case and concluded that there was nothing to indicate Chakma is in illegal detention and that only he can be blamed for his miseries since he failed to explain how he came to India after he had left the country on a Bangladeshi passport.Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition. .Advocates S Narayan, Arvind Kumar Ojha, Manish Bhardwaj, Satish Chandra and Hari Kumar appeared for the petitioner Kinadhan Chakma (uncle of Azal Chakma).Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Anurag Ahluwalia along with advocates Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy and Satish Kumar represented the FRRO..[Read Judgment]