After Man Cites 36 Years In India, Madras HC Gives Authorities 4 Weeks To Decide His Trichy Camp Release Plea, Stops Short Of Release

The petitioner, who claimed to have arrived from Sri Lanka in 1990 and lived in Tamil Nadu for approximately 36 years, was arrested in Crime No. 25 of 2026 and granted bail on 18 March 2026.

On 16 May 2026, the second respondent issued a Movement Restriction Order under Section 7(2)(f) of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, and the petitioner was confined in the Trichy Special Camp from 17 May 2026.

He relied on his compliance with bail conditions, long residence, and his role in supporting a nephew requiring regular dialysis; he had sought revocation of the order or release subject to conditions by a representation dated 19 August 2026.

The State opposed release, citing the petitioner’s alleged Sri Lankan citizenship, use of a fake Indian passport, the pending criminal trial, and a risk of absconding.

The petitioner then sought relief under Article 226, including quashing of the restriction order and release from the camp.

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to review the legality of executive action and grant appropriate directions.

Section 7(2)(f) of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 was the statutory basis invoked for the Movement Restriction Order.

Bail in a criminal case and restrictions imposed under immigration law operate in distinct legal spheres; bail does not, by itself, invalidate an otherwise lawful immigration order.

Conversely, the existence of a criminal case or pending trial does not dispense with the requirement that any continuing restriction on liberty have a valid statutory basis and remain within the limits of the applicable law.

A representation concerning continued restriction must be considered on its merits, with relevant circumstances assessed and a reasoned decision issued within a reasonable time.

The Court declined to treat the petitioner’s bail as automatically displacing the separate immigration restriction, and therefore did not order his immediate release on that basis.

It also did not determine the legality or necessity of the continued confinement on the merits.

Instead, it held that the petitioner’s representation could not remain unattended and directed the competent authority to assess, under the applicable law, the restriction’s legality and necessity, the petitioner’s immigration status, the criminal proceedings, bail compliance, and the pleaded family and medical circumstances.

Given the State’s submission that the charge sheet had been filed and trial was likely to commence, the Court also directed the jurisdictional Criminal Court to take necessary steps to avoid undue delay, subject to its docket, fair-trial requirements, and procedural law.

It directed the competent authority to afford the petitioner an opportunity to submit further supporting material, if necessary, consider his representation on its merits, pass a reasoned order within four weeks from receipt of a copy of the order, and communicate its decision to him.

It also directed the jurisdictional Criminal Court to take necessary steps for the trial to proceed without avoidable delay, subject to the stated qualifications.

The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.