Lawfully yours: By Retired Justice K Chandru | No consistent policy on citizenship; concessions not extended to Tamil Hindus from Sri Lanka

No consistent policy on citizenship; concessions not extended to Tamil Hindus from Sri Lanka

As key details over the deportation of non-Indians in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack are slowly made available in the public domain, we come to know that many genuine citizens of the nation had been chucked out, citing one reason or another, wrongly assuming them to be citizens of Pakistan. Such incidents have also been reported in Assam. This puts the NRC and CAA, introduced by the Centre, in a bad light, as they grant bureaucrats extensive powers to decide on such matters. The case is worse in the case of refugees; Sri Lankan Tamils are a case study. Hundreds and thousands of refugee kids born and brought up in Tamil Nadu aren't getting the benefit of citizenship, decades after their birth in India. Do you think bureaucratic apathy is the reason the nation is shirking its duties on handling refugees, or that the country itself lacks the magnanimity and economic capability to accept people in crisis into its fold?

-- N Manickam, Mylapore, Chennai

There is no consistent policy on the issue of citizenship. While the CAA had fixed a cut-off date and countries from which the people come, and is limiting such conferment based on religion, a similar benefit is not extended to Tamil/Hindu people from Sri Lanka. Further, the provisions of the Foreigners Act have been more stringent with the summary power of expulsion. India had also not ratified the UN Convention on Refugees.

A few decades back, courts were granting relief on forcible expulsions of refugees on humanitarian grounds; the present judges are not ready to extend any such principle. The recent statement by two judges on the expulsion of a Sri Lankan Tamil convict is enough to show the growing trend.

What we need is for the government to ratify the Refugee Convention and adopt a more humanitarian approach to the expulsion of a foreigner. The constitutional right of those born here to acquire citizenship as a matter of right must be guaranteed, though the US president has cancelled any such right in the US.

***

Attitude of RWAs on renting out to two adults of different sources nothing but moral policing

The growing housing needs are forcing young migrant professionals to look for co-living, a model where unrelated individuals share furnished apartments with private bedrooms and common living spaces, especially in expensive cities like Chennai. However, some residential welfare associations (RWAs) object to co-living tenants, citing security concerns, etc. Are there any rules governing co-living facilities? Rules to protect co-living tenants' interests, including one to cohabit with anyone they prefer?

-- Valarmathi, Besant Nagar

As our society has yet to accept the live-in relationship of two consenting adults, the attitude of the Resident Welfare Association in prohibiting rentals by two adults of different sources is nothing but moral policing. It has no legal sanction. But flat owners buckle into the diktats of RWAs and refuse such rentals. The funny thing is that two adults can be together in workplaces, but when they retire to rest places, they should go to two different shelters has no meaning, and in the growing economic burden, a restraint on it is unconstitutional.