Consider SL man plea draws Madras High Court’s humane view

Consider SL man seeking clarity on his Indian citizenship status has received a humane response from the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, which has directed the Union Ministries of Home Affairs and External Affairs to carefully examine his long-pending representation. The case involves a 56-year-old resident of a Sri Lankan refugee camp in Virudhunagar district, whose family history and documents trace back to Indian origin before migration during the British period.

The court emphasised that such matters cannot be viewed only through procedural limitations and must be approached with sensitivity, especially when the individual has lived for decades without clarity on nationality. The direction came while disposing of a petition seeking information about a citizenship application filed by the petitioner’s grandfather more than five decades ago.

The petitioner has been living in the Kandiyapuram refugee camp since 1990, after fleeing Sri Lanka during the ethnic conflict. His plea was not for immediate citizenship but for access to records related to an application submitted in 1969 at the Indian High Commission in Colombo. The absence of any response or status update for decades has left the family in a state of legal uncertainty.

Consider SL man case rooted in historical migration and displacement

The background of the Consider SL man case goes back to the migration of Indian-origin Tamils to Sri Lanka during the British era, when many families moved for plantation and labour work. The petitioner’s grandparents were born in India and later settled in Sri Lanka for livelihood. Official birth records of the petitioner and his mother reportedly mention their grandparents as Indian nationals, strengthening the claim of Indian origin.

In 1964, India and Sri Lanka entered into the Sirimavo–Shastri Agreement to address the citizenship status of Indian-origin Tamils in Sri Lanka. Under this agreement, the petitioner’s grandfather applied for Indian citizenship and travel documents in 1969, intending to return to India along with his daughter.

However, due to internal displacement and later ethnic unrest in Sri Lanka, the family lost contact with authorities and never received any response regarding the application. The situation worsened during the civil conflict, forcing the family to escape to India by boat in 1990, after which they were accommodated in a refugee camp. Since then, the family has continued to live in India without a clear legal identity.

The petitioner argued that knowing the status of his grandfather’s application would help him determine his own citizenship eligibility and that of his children. Despite submitting a formal representation to the authorities in April 2025, no response was received, leading him to approach the High Court.

Consider SL man plea linked to constitutional right to life

While hearing the case, the court observed that the petitioner may not be able to invoke the Right to Information Act, as he is not an Indian citizen. However, the judge noted that the right to seek such information can be placed within the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.

The court stated that access to information in this case is not a technical demand but a basic requirement that could enable the petitioner to pursue a lawful path toward citizenship. The judge directed the concerned ministries to examine the representation from a humanitarian perspective and take appropriate steps after verifying old records, even if the process requires time. Also Read: ECI failed in SIR Draft Rolls as Mass Deletions Surface Across Tamil Nadu

Importantly, the court did not impose a strict deadline, acknowledging the difficulty in retrieving decades-old documents. This approach reflects a balance between administrative realities and human dignity.

Conclusion

The Consider SL man case highlights the long-lasting impact of historical migration, conflict, and bureaucratic silence on refugee families. The High Court’s direction underscores the need for empathy in citizenship matters where generations have lived in uncertainty, waiting for recognition that goes beyond paperwork.