The Madras High Court has ruled that forcing an acquitted foreign national to remain in a “Special Camp” amounts to unlawful detention and confinement, emphasizing that a foreigner’s constitutional rights under Article 21 cannot be fully stripped away even if criminal appeals are pending against them.

The single-judge bench of Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan quashed a 2020 Government Order directing a Sri Lankan Tamil national to be lodged at the Special Camp in Tiruchirappalli following his acquittal by a Trial Court.

Case Background:

The petitioner, a Sri Lankan national, entered India on a valid tourist visa. During his stay, he was implicated in a criminal case registered by the Coimbatore CBCID for offences under Sections 177 (furnishing false information) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, subsequently acquitted him of all charges. Despite his acquittal, the State Government issued an order (GO(1D) No. 405) directing him to reside in a Trichy special camp until his deportation. The state defended the confinement on the ground that it had preferred an appeal against his acquittal.

In the proceedings before the Madras High Court, Mr. Rahul Jagannathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, raised critical constitutional challenges against the state government’s order to confine the acquitted individual in a special camp.

His primary arguments focused on the protection of personal liberty and the overreach of administrative restrictions:

• Minimum Curtailment of Rights: Relying heavily on the Supreme Court’s landmark precedent in Frank Vitus v. NCS & Ors. (2024), he argued that while imposing bail or post-release conditions, the constitutional rights of an individual can only be curtailed to the absolute minimum extent required by law.
• Article 21 Protection for All: He emphasized that even a convicted prisoner serving an active sentence in jail is not completely deprived of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
• Illegality of Post-Acquittal Detention: He forcefully contended that since the competent Trial Court had already fully acquitted the petitioner of all criminal charges, continuing to restrict his freedom by forcing him to stay in the Tiruchirappalli special camp was an unjustifiable and unlawful deprivation of his liberty

High Court’s Observations & Verdict:

Analyzing conflicting division bench rulings on the matter, Justice Ilanthiraiyan observed that while “reasonable restrictions” can be placed on a foreigner’s right to move freely across India, confining someone within the literal four walls of a special camp—even locking individual cells at night—crosses the line into unauthorized preventive detention.

The Court highlights:

“Directing a foreigner to remain within a Special Camp and not allowing him to move out… is nothing but an order of detention and confinement.”

The bench also noted that under Section 33 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, the central government has extended protected status to registered Sri Lankan Tamil nationals who sought refuge in India up to 2015, making their residence legitimate and protected by law. Finding no surviving offence or lawful cause for continued lock-up, the Court set aside the impugned order.

Conditions for Release:

While ordering the immediate release of the petitioner from the Tiruchirappalli Special Camp, the High Court imposed the following regulatory conditions to secure his availability during the pending appeal:

1. Weekly Appearance: The petitioner must mark his attendance before the CBCID police every Monday at 10:30 a.m. until the disposal of the state’s criminal appeal.
2. Contact Disclosures: The petitioner must formally disclose his exact place of residence and contact numbers to the local police department.
3. Passport Surrender: The petitioner must deposit his passport with the first respondent immediately if it has not already been seized by investigative agencies.