Madras High Court Affirms Non-Citizens' Right to Challenge Discriminatory State Actions via Writ Petitions

Introduction

In a significant ruling for refugee rights and constitutional protections, the Madras High Court has held that non-citizens, including registered Sri Lankan Tamil refugees, can invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge arbitrary and discriminatory state actions that violate Articles 14 and 21. The court set aside the termination of employment of G. Thirukalyanamalar, a Sri Lankan national employed by the State Bank of India (SBI), ruling that her dismissal solely on grounds of nationality was unconstitutional. Delivered by Justice Hemant Chandangoudar on January 23, 2026, in G. Thirukalyanamalar v. State Bank of India and Others (W.P. No. 18835 of 2013), the judgment underscores the applicability of fundamental rights to non-citizens in cases of alleged arbitrariness, while distinguishing rights exclusive to citizens. This decision, cited, could broaden access to judicial remedies for refugees and migrants facing employment discrimination, particularly in public sector institutions like SBI.

The case arose from Thirukalyanamalar's challenge to an SBI order dated June 28, 2013, terminating her services after discovering her Sri Lankan nationality during document verification for permanent absorption. The court not only quashed the termination but also emphasized rehabilitation schemes for Sri Lankan refugees, highlighting their legal right to reside and work in India under exemptions from immigration laws.

Case Background

G. Thirukalyanamalar, a registered Tamil Sri Lankan refugee, fled to Tamil Nadu with her family in 1990 at the age of five due to ethnic conflicts in Sri Lanka. Her grandparents were born in India before migrating to Sri Lanka, making her of Indian origin by descent, though she retained Sri Lankan nationality. She completed her education in Tamil Nadu, obtaining recognized qualifications, and integrated into Indian society, eventually marrying an Indian citizen and having two Indian-born children.

In 2007, SBI advertised positions for Officer-Marketing and Recovery (Rural), explicitly inviting applications from Indian citizens. Thirukalyanamalar applied, disclosing her place of birth as Colombo, Sri Lanka, but the application form lacked a specific column for citizenship or nationality. She was selected and appointed on April 5, 2008, on a contractual basis for two years, commencing March 31, 2008. During her tenure, she performed duties effectively, receiving incentives for meeting targets.

In 2010, amid a writ petition by the SBI Contract Officers' Welfare Association (W.P. No. 7431 of 2010) seeking permanent absorption of contract employees, SBI issued a policy for absorbing eligible rural recovery officers, including Thirukalyanamalar, who met the 60% target achievement criterion for 2009-2010. Her name was included in the final selection list for Probationary Officer (Rural Business). However, during document scrutiny, SBI identified her as a non-citizen and terminated her services via the impugned order on June 28, 2013, claiming she suppressed her nationality and violated eligibility requirements.

Thirukalyanamalar filed the writ petition under Article 226, seeking to quash the termination and direct reinstatement with continuity of service and benefits from July 1, 2013. The court admitted the petition and granted an interim stay, allowing her to continue in service, which she has done uninterruptedly for over 17 years as of the judgment date.

The core legal questions were: (1) Does a non-citizen have locus standi to maintain a writ petition challenging state employment actions? (2) Is termination based solely on non-citizenship arbitrary and violative of Article 14's equality guarantee, especially for a legally resident refugee? (3) How do refugee rehabilitation schemes and immigration exemptions impact such claims?

Arguments Presented

Thirukalyanamalar, represented by Senior Counsel K.M. Ramesh assisted by V. Subramani, argued that her termination was discriminatory and antithetical to Article 14, which ensures equality before the law for all persons, not just citizens. She contended that as a registered refugee under Tamil Nadu's rehabilitation schemes, she enjoyed rights akin to Indian citizens, including access to employment. Emphasizing her Indian origin, long residence since 1990, local education, and family ties (marriage to an Indian and Indian children), she asserted that denying her permanent absorption solely on nationality deprived her of livelihood without justification. The petitioner highlighted that the application form did not require citizenship disclosure, negating any fraud claim, and that her stay was legalized under immigration exemptions. She urged the court to recognize her legitimate expectation of continued service after years of unblemished performance.

SBI, represented by C. Mohan and A. Rexy Josephine Mary of King and Partridge, countered that the 2007 advertisement explicitly required Indian citizenship, and Thirukalyanamalar's application constituted suppression of material facts, amounting to fraudulent appointment. They argued she lacked locus standi to invoke constitutional remedies, as fundamental rights under Articles 15, 16, and 19 are citizen-exclusive, and extended their claim to Article 14 challenges by non-citizens. Citing precedents like Dulu Deka v. State of Assam (2023) 9 SCC 749 (on citizenship for public employment) and Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav (2003) 3 SCC 437 (ineligibility of non-citizens), SBI maintained the termination was lawful to uphold recruitment integrity. They further relied on State Bank of India v. A.G.D. Reddy (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1064 and a prior Madras HC order in Gnanaprakasam v. Government of Tamil Nadu (W.P. No. 18373 of 2008), arguing non-citizens cannot claim public employment rights.

Legal Analysis

Justice Chandangoudar first addressed locus standi, interpreting Article 226 broadly to allow writs not only for fundamental rights enforcement but "for any other purpose." He distinguished citizen-exclusive rights (Articles 15, 16, 19) from those available to all persons (Articles 14 and 21). Drawing on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that non-citizens can challenge state actions infringing equality (Article 14) or life/liberty (Article 21).

Key precedents included Louis De Raedt v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 554, where the Supreme Court extended Article 21 protections to foreigners against arbitrary state actions affecting life or liberty. Similarly, National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh (1996) 1 SCC 742 affirmed refugees' entitlement to Article 21 safeguards, obligating the state to protect all human beings regardless of nationality. The court distinguished Stelmakh Leonid Iuliia v. Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs (2011, Bombay HC), which barred non-citizens from Article 16 claims, noting the present case involved Article 14 discrimination, not employment equality under Article 16.

On refugee status, the judgment examined Tamil Nadu's rehabilitation schemes, providing shelter, education, financial aid, and employment opportunities. Under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act, 2025, and the Immigration and Foreigners (Exemption) Order, 2025 (invoking Section 33), registered Sri Lankan Tamils entering before January 9, 2015, are exempt from passport/visa requirements, regularizing their residence. Thirukalyanamalar's 1990 entry and registration qualified her, rendering her stay lawful.

The court applied Article 14 principles against arbitrariness, holding SBI's delayed termination—after five years of service and interim court protection—unreasonable and discriminatory. It noted the absence of a citizenship disclosure column negated suppression claims, and long service created legitimate expectation. Referencing the Handbook on Personnel Officers, 1987 (Government of India), persons of Indian origin from Sri Lanka intending permanent settlement can seek government posts with eligibility certificates, supporting refugee employment rights. Regulations for IAS/IFS similarly allow non-citizens in notified categories.

The analysis clarified distinctions: while public employment (Article 16) is citizen-reserved, discriminatory termination of a legally employed refugee violates Article 14's equal protection. The court limited its ruling to the facts, not adjudicating SBI's power to restrict hires to citizens generally.

Key Observations

The judgment features several pivotal excerpts emphasizing the court's reasoning:

• On locus standi: “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 refugee protections: “The ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions clearly establishes that citizenship is immaterial for the purpose of invoking writ jurisdiction. So long as the impugned action affects or infringes the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, a non-citizen, including a refugee, is entitled to seek redressal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

• On the termination's invalidity: “Therefore, 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. The impugned order of termination is thus, unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside.”

• On broader context: “The petitioner, having entered into India in the year 1990 at the age of 5, has pursued and completed her education within the State of Tamil Nadu. She has been awarded educational qualifications duly recognized by the competent authorities of the State... Such termination would also result in depriving the petitioner of her only source of livelihood.”

These observations highlight the balance between citizenship requirements and non-discrimination for vulnerable groups.

Court's Decision

The Madras High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the June 28, 2013, termination order. It directed SBI to treat Thirukalyanamalar as continuing in service, entitled to all attendant benefits, wages from July 1, 2013, and continuity of service, without costs. The ruling is confined to the case's facts, explicitly not setting a precedent on restricting public employment to citizens, leaving SBI's general policy intact.

Practically, this reinstates Thirukalyanamalar after 17+ years, securing her livelihood and family welfare. For future cases, it expands writ access for non-citizens challenging employment discrimination, particularly refugees under state schemes. It may encourage similar claims in public sector jobs, prompting institutions to verify nationalities early and uniformly. In refugee law, it reinforces India's obligations under international norms (e.g., non-refoulement) by upholding residence and work rights, potentially influencing policies for over 100,000 Sri Lankan Tamils in Tamil Nadu.

This decision aligns with evolving jurisprudence on inclusive protections, reminding state entities that arbitrary actions against non-citizens invite constitutional scrutiny. For legal professionals, it serves as a tool in advising migrant clients on fundamental rights invocation, while cautioning against delayed eligibility enforcement post-appointment.