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 1st 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 O R D E R 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 be 6/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(Crl).No.1651 of 2025 arbitrary 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 2025 order 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, the 11/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(Crl).No.1651 of 2025 concerned 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 their 12/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(Crl).No.1651 of 2025 sentences. 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, 10th 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 remain 13/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(Crl).No.1651 of 2025 within 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 of 16/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(Crl).No.1651 of 2025 residence 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