THENU JEYAPRIYAN V. THE FOREIGNERS REGIONAL REGISTRATION OFFICER 2026:KER:3631:

DATE: 16/01/2026

COURT: High Court of Kerala

BENCH: Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas

FACTS:

The petitioners are Sri Lankan citizens and the children of accused persons in R.C. No. 03/2023/NIA/KOC and R.C. No. 04/2023/NIA/KOC, who were arrested by the National Investigation Agency in connection with alleged offences under investigation. Along with their parents, the petitioners were initially taken into custody and were subsequently housed at the Gandhibhavan International Trust, Pathanapuram, Kollam, which functions as a Transit Home. The petitioners, who were not accused in any criminal case, continued to reside in the said Transit Home for more than two years pursuant to directions earlier issued by the High Court.

The petitioners approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that their prolonged stay in the Transit Home amounted to illegal detention and violated their fundamental rights under Article 21. They sought a declaration that their continued detention was unconstitutional and prayed for directions to the authorities to facilitate their return to Sri Lanka by issuing necessary travel and exit documents. The respondents, while stating that the petitioners held valid Sri Lankan passports but had overstayed due to expiry of visas, submitted that they had no objection to the petitioners’ repatriation, subject to confirmation that they were not required for any further investigation.

ISSUES:

The principal issue before the Court was whether the continued confinement of the petitioners—foreign nationals not accused of any offence and not required for investigation in a Transit Home for over two years amounted to an unconstitutional deprivation of their right to life and personal liberty, and whether the authorities were under a duty to facilitate their exit from India by issuing necessary travel and exit permits.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the first respondent to take immediate steps to facilitate the petitioners’ return to Sri Lanka by issuing the required exit permits and travel documents. The Court ordered that such steps be completed at the earliest and, in any event, within two weeks from the date of application for the exit permit, ensuring that no administrative hurdles delay the petitioners’ departure from India.

The Court placed significant emphasis on the undisputed fact that the petitioners were not accused in any criminal case and were not required by the National Investigation Agency or any other investigating authority for enquiry or investigation. The submission made by the Deputy Solicitor General of India, upon instructions, that the petitioners were not wanted by any investigating agency was decisive. In the absence of any legal justification for restricting their movement or continued residence in a Transit Home, the Court found that there was no authority of law supporting their prolonged confinement.

The Court further held that continued detention of the petitioners, despite the absence of any criminal liability or investigative necessity, amounted to a clear violation of their fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The mere expiry of their visas could not justify indefinite detention, particularly when the respondents themselves expressed no objection to their repatriation. The Court therefore concluded that the State was constitutionally obligated to facilitate the petitioners’ exit from India by promptly issuing exit permits and necessary travel documents, and to remove any procedural impediments to ensure their safe and timely return to Sri Lanka.

ANALYSIS:

This case underscores the constitutional limits on executive authority in restricting the personal liberty of foreign nationals who are neither accused of any offence nor required for investigation. The Court reaffirmed that the protection of Article 21 of the Constitution extends to all persons within the territory of India, including non-citizens. By examining the factual matrix, the Court found that the continued confinement of the petitioners in a Transit Home, solely on the basis of their parents’ involvement in criminal proceedings and the expiry of their visas, lacked any statutory backing. The absence of a lawful basis for such confinement rendered the continued restriction on the petitioners’ movement arbitrary and unconstitutional.

The judgment also highlights the State’s positive obligation to act reasonably and expeditiously when liberty-restricting circumstances cease to exist. Once it was admitted that the petitioners were not required by any investigating agency, the State could not rely on administrative delays or procedural formalities to justify their continued detention. The Court’s direction to promptly issue exit permits and facilitate repatriation reflects a rights-oriented approach, ensuring that immigration control measures do not degenerate into indefinite detention. The decision thus reinforces the principle that executive convenience cannot override fundamental rights, and that deprivation of liberty must always be supported by clear authority of law and proportional justification.