Isabella Mariam

The Madras High Court single Bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar set aside State Bank of India’s order terminating the services of a registered Sri Lankan Tamil refugee employee, holding that the termination solely on the ground of non-citizenship was arbitrary and discriminatory. The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned termination order. While noting that fundamental rights reserved exclusively for citizens under Articles 15, 16 and 19 cannot be enforced through writ jurisdiction by a non-citizen, the Bench observed that a non-citizen can maintain a writ petition under Article 226 where State action is alleged to be arbitrary, makes unreasonable discrimination, and results in violation of rights under Articles 14 and/or 21.

The writ petition was filed by a registered Sri Lankan Tamil refugee challenging the termination of her services by SBI. She had applied pursuant to a recruitment notification issued in 2007 for appointment to the post of Officer – Marketing and Recovery (Rural) and was appointed in 2008 after being found suitable. Her appointment was initially contractual, and she later became eligible for permanent absorption under a policy approved by the bank in 2010.

Also Read: Supreme Court Urges Govts To Digitize Land Records Using Tamper-Proof Technology Like Blockchain

While her name was included in the final list of selected candidates for absorption, the bank, during verification of records, noticed that she was a Sri Lankan national and not an Indian citizen. Since the recruitment notification required Indian citizenship, the bank terminated her services by an order dated 28.06.2013.

The petitioner contended that she had lawfully entered India as a child refugee, had continuously resided in Tamil Nadu, completed her education there, and was entitled to protection under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The bank opposed the writ petition on the ground that she lacked eligibility due to non-citizenship and further questioned her locus standi to invoke writ jurisdiction.

The Court first examined the objection regarding maintainability and locus standi. It “observed that Article 226 empowers the High Court to issue writs not only for enforcement of fundamental rights but also ‘for any other purpose’” and clarified that while certain rights are confined to citizens, others extend to all persons. The Court recorded that “Articles 14 and 21 are guaranteed to ‘all persons’ and not merely to citizens.”

Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court stated that “citizenship is immaterial for invoking writ jurisdiction where State action is alleged to be arbitrary or discriminatory.” It noted that “A non-citizen cannot invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court for enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed exclusively to citizens under Articles 15, 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India...However, where the State action is alleged to be arbitrary, unreasonable discriminatory and results in violation of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and / or 21 of the Constitution of India, a non-citizen is entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court,”

On facts, the Court found that the petitioner’s residence in India was lawful and protected under the Immigration and Foreigners (Exemption) Order, 2025, observing that “her stay stands regularised and cannot be characterised as illegal.” The Court also recorded that the petitioner had disclosed her place of birth as Colombo, Sri Lanka, and that “the application form did not contain any specific column requiring disclosure of citizenship or nationality.”

The Court further noted that the petitioner had continued in service from 2008 under interim protection and that “termination at this stage would be arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory.” It recorded that such action “would defeat the petitioner’s legitimate expectation arising from long and continuous service and deprive her of her only source of livelihood.”

Also Read: Student With Benchmark Disability Entitled To Fee Waiver Even Without PwD Quota Admission: Madras High Court

The Court held that “the action of the respondent Bank in terminating the petitioner’s services solely on the ground that she is not a citizen of this Country is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.” It therefore directed that “the impugned order dated 28.06.2013 is hereby quashed.”

The writ petition is allowed” and “there shall be no order as to costs.” The Court clarified that the decision was passed “in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case” and “shall not be treated as a precedent.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. K.M. Ramesh, Senior Advocate, for Mr. V. Subramani

For the Respondents: Mr. C. Mohan, Ms. A. Rexy Josephine Mary, for M/s King and Partridge (Law Firm)

Case Title: G. Thirukalyanamalar v. State Bank of India
Case Number: W.P. No. 18835 of 2013
Bench: Justice Hemant Chandangoudar