Madras High Court
Parista vs The State Of Tamil Nadu, Additional … on 13 July, 2026
Author: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
W.P.(Crl).No.1651 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.07.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.(Crl).No.1651 of 2025
and W.P.MP.(Crl).No.776 of 2025
Parista … Petitioner
vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Additional Secretary to Government,
Public (SC) Department,
Fort St, George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Fake Passport Investigation wing police station,
Central Crime Branch, Vepery,
Chennai-600 007. … Respondents
PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records in relation
to the order issued under the provision of Foreigners Act, 1946 made in
G.O.1 (D) No.527 dated 20.09.2025 on the file of the 1 st respondent herein,
quash the same, consequently direct the respondents to release the petitioner
detain in the Special Camp, No.142, Madurai Road, Palakarai,
Sangilyandapuram, Tiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu-620008.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Kartheeban
For R1 and R2 : Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar
Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu
(Criminal Side)
1/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(Crl).No.1651 of 2025
ORDER
The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the government order in
G.O.(1D)No.527 Public (Foreigners-II) Department dated 20.09.2025,
thereby directing the petitioner to reside in the special camp identified and
located by the District Collector, Tiruchirappalli District, in view of the
petitioner’s release from the jail till deportation.
2. The petitioner is an Sri Lankan Nationals and she gave birth to a
child and she has presently residing in India. The petitioner was came to
India by tourist visa and due to fear of waging war in Srilanka she stayed in
India. While she was staying in India, she has been implicated in a case
relating to the alleged possession of a forged Indian Passport. However, the
petitioner is in possession of her original Sri Lankan Passport
No.N10986281 issued on 13.11.2023 valid upto 13.11.2033 at Sri Lanka,
which establishes her nationality and identity as a bona fide citizen of Sri
Lanka. She also obtained Aadhaar card and other proof of her identity and
residence in India. On the strength of those documents, she applied for
passport in India and she was issued with passport after due verification of
her credentials. Further, the petitioner obtained valid Visa for Switzerland
2/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(Crl).No.1651 of 2025
vide Visa No.008241370. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the
concern authority to apply for exit permit on 02.06.2025, wherein it was
found that she had alledgedly used Indian document to obtain Visa in her
favour. Thereafter, the Immigration Authority lodged a complaint as against
the petitioner before the 2nd respondent alleging that she possessed a fake
passport. Thereafter, on 21.08.2025, on the receipt of the complaint from the
immigration officer, the 2nd respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.151
of 2025 for the offence punishable under Sections 12(1)(b), 12(1A)(a) of the
Passports Act and Sections 318(4), 336(3), 340(2) of BNS, 2023 alleging
that being a Srilankan national, she had come to India in the month of May,
2012 through tourist visa and she had overstayed in India illegally and she
had fraudulently obtained Indian identity documents including Aadhaar card
and using those documents applied passport and obtained passport and also
travelled to several countries on various occasions. One of such travel, when
the petitioner travelled to Srilanka and returned back to Chennai, she was
suspected and on enquiry, it is revealed that she was a Srilanka national.
Therefore, the petitioner is arrayed as accused. Pursuant to the registration
of FIR, she was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. However, she
was released on bail on certain conditions. Thereafter, the first respondent
passed the order impugned in this Writ Petition, thereby directed the
3/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(Crl).No.1651 of 2025
petitioner to stay in the special camp at Tiruchirappalli until such time of
their deportation is effected.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it
is clear violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guaranteed
the right to life and personal liberty, encompassing within its fold the right
to live with dignity, right to education and right to family life. The order of
detention was passed under Section 3(2)(e) of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
However, the Foreigners Act, 1946 itself stood repealed by virtue of new
enactment of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, which came into
force on 01.09.2025. Further, the first respondent had no jurisdiction or legal
authority to invoke or rely upon the provision of a repealed statue.
Therefore, the exercise of power under a non-existing law renders the
impugned order null and void, being in violation of the fundamental
principles of legality and competence.
3.1. He further submits that based on the powers conferred under
Section 33 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, and in supersession
of the Registration of Foreigners (exemption) Order 1957 and the
Immigration (Carrier’s Liability) Order, 2007, which governs the field as on
4/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(Crl).No.1651 of 2025
the date of the impugned order, contains explicit saving and transitional
provisions, whereby Srilankan nationals who had entered into India prior to
the year 2015 and whose presence and stay had been duly informed and
registered with the competent authority are excluded from penal or coercive
measures under the new Act. The petitioner being a Srilankan national who
had lawfully entered into India before 2015 and had duly informed the
concerned authorities about their stay, squarely falls within the protective
ambit of the provision under Section 33 of the Immigration and Foreigners
Act, 2025.
4. Per contra, the learned Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu
(Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents submits that the first
respondent has ample power and jurisdiction to pass the impugned order,
thereby directing the petitioner to reside in the special camp identified and
located by the District Collector, Tiruchirappalli. He further submits that
admittedly, the petitioner is a Srilankan national and she visited India
through tourist visa. Suppressing the said fact, she obtained Aadhaar card
and other residential proof from the concerned department and applied for
passport. They also visited several countries by using the Indian passport.
Therefore, she overstayed in India and also obtained India passport by
5/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(Crl).No.1651 of 2025
producing fabricated documents with false representation. Hence, she is
arrayed as accused in Crime No.151 of 2025 and facing criminal
investigation. Therefore till the order of deportation, she shall reside in the
special camp identified by the District Collector, Tiruchirappalli.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused
the materials placed before this Court.
6. The very same issue was dealt with by the Hon’ble Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Kalavathy & ors Vs. State of Tamil
Nadu, reported in 1995-2-L.W.(Crl.) 620(2), in which the Hon’ble Division
Bench of this Court held as follows:-
“24. There is no absolute prohibition to move from
one place to another. The orders of say that the inmates
shall not leave the camp except with permission of the
District Collector. In other words, they can move on grant
of permission. The dimensions of freedom to move
throughout the territory of India avail-able for a citizen, is
not the same for a foreigner. Having regard to the
particular explosive situation prevalent in the country, it is
only reasonable that restrictions of this sort are sought to
be imposed. Such imposition can never be stated to be6/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(Crl).No.1651 of 2025arbitrary or capricious if- exercise of power, violating the
mandate of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. As
already stated, there is a fallacy in the argument that the
orders become bad in the absence of old fixation of definite
periods of stay in the special refugee camps, for each order
is not one of detention but only one of reasonable
restriction.”Thus it is clear that, such restriction had been violating the mandate of
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The order is not one of
detention but only one of reasonable restriction.
7. In another judgment, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court,
in H.C.P.No.971 of 2021 dated 14.11.2003 in the case of Yogeswari Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2003) 1 LW (Cri) 352, held as follows:-
“29. Assuming that the legality of the order as set out
above can be sustained, on merits, we find that the order is
vitiated on many counts :
i) The impugned order did not take note of the bail
order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Tiruchirapalli in Crl.M.P. No.211 of 2001 dated 1.2.2001
with a condition that the detenu should reside at
Chengalpattu and report before the Judicial Magistrate,
Chengalpattu everyday.
ii) Even though the counter affidavit says that the bail
7/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(Crl).No.1651 of 2025order was taken note of, the admission in the counter is that
since a case is pending against the detenu, he cannot be
allowed to leave the Special Camp and it is also stated that
the detention order is passed only because of the pendency
of the case and nothing else.
iii) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in the
orders extracted above, has maintained that the
Government has no objection in sending the detenu back to
Sri Lanka and that the impugned order was passed only
because of the pendency of the criminal case against the
detenu. If that is so, then, regulating the presence of the
detenu under the Foreigners Act, 1946 can only be in a
place set apart for residential purpose and not in a Special
Camp which is meant for keeping persons who have entered
into India unauthorizedly and as refugees.
iv) Insofar as the detenu in this case is concerned, he
has entered into India along with the petitioner herein
authorizedly, has complied with all the formalities and also
has a residence in India ever since 1983.
Therefore, the impugned order clearly amounts to a
detention and confinement.
30. In this context, the judgment of the Division
Bench in KALAVATHY‘s case is clearly distinguishable on
facts. The Division Bench, in that case, was concerned with
persons who had close links with L.T.T.E. and they had
posed a danger to the security of the State. Apart from there
8/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(Crl).No.1651 of 2025
being members belonging to various militant groups, the
petitioners in that case were all of that category and
therefore, this decision will not apply to the case of other
foreigners. The argument of the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor in that case was that the enquiry revealed that
the respective foreign nationals were having illegal
connections with L.T.T.E. Those foreign nationals were not
in possession of any legal documents and they were having
close links with L.T.T.E. It is only those internees who are
kept in Special Camps, at the rate of four persons per cell,
by locking up the inmates from 6 am to 6 pm with certain
relaxation. It was argued that the petitioners in those cases
had engaged themselves in anti-social activities like
smuggling of arms and explosives unauthorizedly, exporting
fuel and other essential commodities to Sri Lanka, besides
committing offences against the local public, apart from
getting involved in Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination. It was
further argued by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
in that case that Sri Lanka nationals were being permitted
to stay in this country subject to the condition that they
would not indulge in activities prejudicial to the interests of
this country in any manner. If they had their own plans to
settle in peace, they can follow the said plan or in the
alternative, accept the plans of the Central and State
Governments to settle themselves in this country peacefully.
The State Government never intended to detain or regulate
9/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(Crl).No.1651 of 2025
the movements of stay or peace. However, persons who
belonged to various militant groups had to be segregated
and their movements regulated not only in the interests of
the State, but also for the welfare of those militants who
were inimically disposed to each other. It was specifically
stated by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in that
case as follows :-
“Except that reasonable restrictions have been
imposed on those foreigners who have entered into India
without any valid document and had indulged in activities
which are prejudicial to the security, safety and territorial
integrity of India, their liberty has not been taken away.”
31. In that context, the Division Bench accepted
the case that the detenu were neither arrested nor detained.
The Division Bench, after considering these arguments,
found from the facts narrated that only a small percentage
of Sri Lankans who had been entertained as refugees were
said to have been detained in the Special Refugee Camps
“in view of the information available to the State
Government that they belong to militant groups and have
close links not only with the L.T.T.E. Organisation, but
some of them had a role to play in the Rajiv Gandhi’s
assassination
32. The facts, set out above in the said case are
totally in contrast with the facts of the case on hand and
hence, the decision of the Division Bench that a special
10/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(Crl).No.1651 of 2025
refugee camp cannot be termed as an internment camp
thereby justifying the order passed under Section 3(2)(e) of
the Foreigners Act, 1946 will not apply to the facts of this
case. The detenu in this case will not come under any of the
categories referred to by the Division Bench in the said
judgment. He is a Sri Lankan citizen living in India as a
foreigner and therefore, his internment as contemplated
under Section 4 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, is nothing but an order of
detention and confinement.”
Thus, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court held that the order of stay in
special camp is nothing but detention and confinement.
8. It is also relevant to rely upon the another judgment of the
Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in H.C.P.No.1038 of 2003, dated
14.11.2003 in the case of Premavthy @ Rajathi Vs. State of Tamil nadu,
which held as follows:-
“39. We would not go into that question. However,
what concerns us is the complaint made by the learned
counsel that once they are put in the Special Camp, that is
almost a one-way ticket for them in the sense that they
cannot go out. In our opinion, it would be better if the
Government is directed to take up the review in each
individual case, atleast twice a year. For this purpose, the11/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(Crl).No.1651 of 2025concerned persons can be given an opportunity to make
representations and to show the change of circumstances.
We also feel that such persons, who are not potentially
dangerous or whose life itself is not in danger on account of
their connections with the militant organisations could be
allowed to go out atleast once a week for making purchases,
etc. of course, under a proper police escort so that they do
not take any undue advantage of the facility given. It is
suggested by the learned counsel that whenever an
application is made for going out on some occasions like,
marriage, family functions, funeral, etc. such applications
are not considered in time. We would expect the
Government to dispose of these applications expeditiously
and not beyond a period of four weeks, if they are made to a
proper authority. This will, of course, be subject to the
Government’s right to make bi-annual review in case of
each such person. We are also of the opinion, that the
facility of meeting with the relations should be in a more
relaxed manner so that they are able to meet their relatives
and other persons (not necessarily only those whose names
have been earlier given). Similarly, we have already taken a
note of the argument by the learned Public Prosecutor that
these persons would not be kept in the Special Camps the
moment the requirement of their being lodged in the Special
Camp comes to an end like when they are acquitted of the
charge or when they are convicted and served out their12/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(Crl).No.1651 of 2025sentences. We would also expect that the State Government
and the Public Prosecutors in the criminal cases pending
against these persons would be more vigilant and their
criminal cases should be disposed of with top priority.
Accordingly, a general direction shall issue that all those
persons who are lodged in the Special Camp on account of
a pending criminal prosecution, such criminal case should
be disposed of giving top priority to that case. All the
concerned courts shall be informed of this direction.”Thus, the government was directed to take up review in each individual
case, atleast twice a year and consider their respective request.
9. Thereafter, the issue was referred to a Larger Bench to resolve
the conflicts between the Hon’ble Division Benches decisions. The Larger
Bench of this Court in H.C.P.No.1138 of 2006 in the case of Sree Latha Vs.
Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu & ors, reported in
2007 SCC OnLine Mad 1699, held as follows:-
“19. According to Concise Oxford Dictionary, 10 th Edition,
the expression confine means, to keep or restrict someone or
something within certain limits of space. In a general sense,
directing a foreigner to remain within a Special Camp and not
allowing him to move out of such Special Camp may amount to his
confinement within such Special Camp as such person is to remain13/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(Crl).No.1651 of 2025within certain limits of space. However, it can be also said to be
compatible with Section 3(2)(e)(1) and (ii) inasmuch as the
foreigner is asked to reside in a particular place, namely, the
Special Camp, along with further imposition of restriction in his
movement in the sense that his movement is restricted within the
space available in the Camp during day time and he is further
restricted to a particular cell during night time. Section 4 (2)
contemplates that any foreigner, a person on parole may be
subjected to other conditions as to discipline.
Having regard to all these aspects, we are unable to accept
the submission made by the petitioner and, in our considered
opinion, the Division Bench decision of this Court in (1995) 2 LW
(Cri) 690 (2) (KALAVATHY v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU) had
been correctly decided.
We are also unable to accept as correct the ratio of the
subsequent decision in (2003) 1 LW (Cri) 352 (YOGESWARI v.
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO
GOVT., PUBLIC (SC) DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI) as such an
order directing a foreigner to stay within a Special Camp with
certain inevitable restriction regarding on his movement would
amount to an order of preventive detention as envisaged under the
National Security Act, 1980 and an order of arrest and detention or
confinement within the meaning of Section 3(2)(g) of the
Foreigners Act. Though it would have been more appropriate for
the subsequent Division Bench in the unreported decision in
Premavathy’s case to refer the matter to a larger Bench for
14/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(Crl).No.1651 of 2025
resolving such conflict, the ultimate conclusion was correct. Since
we have approved the ratio of the decision in Kalavathy‘s case, it is
not necessary to consider in detail the submission of the learned
Senior Counsel that the Supreme Court in SLP had merely rejected
the petition without laying down any particular principle of law,
though prima facie the observation made in Premavathy’s case that
the ratio of Kalavathy‘s case had received the approval of the
Supreme Court appears to be justified.”
Therefore, the Larger Bench held that the decision made in the case of
Kalavathy & ors Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, is a right decision since it
received the approval of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Subsequently,
the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in H.C.P.No.1608 of 2020 dated
08.10.2021 in the case of Rajalakahmi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & ors held
that challenging an order passed by the State Government under Section
3(2)(e) of the Foreigners Act, cannot considered as order of detention and it
can be challenged before the Single Bench of this Court but not as a Hebeas
Corpus Petition.
10. Thereafter, the Government of India passed an order dated
01.09.2025, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 33 of the
Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 and in supersession of the
Registration of Foreigners (Exemption) Order, 1957 and the Immigration
15/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(Crl).No.1651 of 2025
(Carriers’ Liability) Order, 2007, except as respective things done or omitted
to be done before such supersession, thereby extending the stay in India and
for the purpose of exiting India shall not apply to registered Srilankan Tamil
nationals who have taken shelter in India upto 09.01.2015.
11. All the above factors are already considered by this Court in
W.P.No.18835 of 2013 in the case of G.Thirukalyanamalar Vs. State Bank
of India & ors., by an order dated 23.01.2026, which held as follows:-
“18. Thus, the aforesaid exemption expressly excludes the
application of Section 3 of the Act 2025, which otherwise
mandates compulsory possession of a valid passport and visa for
a foreigner to reside in India. Consequently, the residence of the
petitioner who is a registered Srilankan Tamil Refugee in this
Country cannot be characterized as illegal. On the contrary, her
stay stands regularized and protected by virtue of Section 3 of
Order 2025, who admittedly is a registered Sri Lankan Tamil
national.
19. Insofar as the provisions of Citizenship Act are
concerned, the same need not be adverted to in detail, as no
material has been produced to substantiate that the petitioner
has acquired Indian citizenship either by registration,
naturalization or descent.
20. In the light of the foregoing discussion, it is evident
that the petitioner has been conferred with a lawful right of16/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(Crl).No.1651 of 2025residence in India. The rehabilitation scheme formulated for Sri
Lankan Tamil refugees also extends benefits such as shelter,
education and employment in India, particularly in the State of
Tamil Nadu.”
12. In the case on hand also, the petitioner, who was born in Sri
Lanka, had come out to Chennai through tourist visa and overstayed in
India. She came down to Chennai due to the fear of waging war in Srilanka
and she stayed in India by duly furnishing her residential address to the
jurisdiction police station viz., R-3 Ashok Nagar Police Station, Law and
Order, Ashok Nagar, Chennai-83 as she was a Srilankan national. She was
also issued with Aadhaar card and other residential proofs. Based on those
documents, she obtained Indian passport and also visited several countries
on several occasions. However, in the year 2025, her identity was verified
and found that she had came from Srilanka. In fact, she had not come to
adverse notice on verification of available records in the above said Police
Station. Therefore, no offence is made out as against the petitioner in view
of the Section 33 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act and in supersession
of the Registration of Foreigners (Exemption) order, 1957.
17/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(Crl).No.1651 of 2025
13. In view of the above discussions, the FIR registered in Crime
No.151 of 2025 itself cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed. By
exercising the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, this Court is inclined to quash the very FIR itself and the subsequent
impugned order in G.O.(1D)No.527 Public (Foreigners-II) Department
dated 20.09.2025.
14. Accordingly, the FIR in Crime No.151 of 2025 on the file of
the 2nd respondent is hereby quashed as against the accused person.
Consequently, the impugned Government order in G.O.(1D)No.527 Public
(Foreigners-II) Department dated 20.09.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent, is
also hereby quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the first
respondent in G.O.(1D)No.527 Public (Foreigners-II) Department dated
20.09.2025, is hereby quashed and the petitioner shall release from the
special camp at Tiruchirappalli, forthwith, on the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall report before jurisdiction police station viz.,
the Inspector of Police, Fake Passport Investigation Wing, Alpha – V,
Central Crime Branch, Vepery, Chennai – 600007, on the first day of every
month at 10.30 a.m., till the order of deportation.
18/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(Crl).No.1651 of 2025
(ii) The petitioner shall inform her place of residence and her contact
details to the Inspector of Police, Fake Passport Investigation Wing, Alpha –
V, Central Crime Branch, Vepery, Chennai – 600007.
15. With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no
order as to cost.
13.07.2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
dm
To
1.The Additional Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Public (SC) Department,
Fort St, George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Fake Passport Investigation wing police station,
Central Crime Branch, Vepery,
Chennai-600 007.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
19/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(Crl).No.1651 of 2025
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
dm
W.P.(Crl).No.1651 of 2025
13.07.2026
20/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
