Non-citizen employment rights in India received strong judicial backing after the Madras High Court ruled that services cannot be terminated solely on the ground of nationality, granting relief to a Sri Lankan refugee employed with State Bank of India.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Hemant Chandangoudar in Thirukalyanamalar v. State Bank of India, marks an important development in employment law and refugee rights in India.
Non-Citizen Employment Rights Under Indian Constitution
The petitioner, G. Thirukalyanamalar, is a registered Sri Lankan Tamil refugee who has been residing lawfully in India since childhood. In 2008, she was appointed as an Officer – Marketing and Recovery (Rural) with the State Bank of India pursuant to a recruitment notification.
She continued in uninterrupted service for over 17 years, including the period during which the case remained pending before the Court under interim protection.
In June 2013, SBI terminated her services after discovering that she was a Sri Lankan national and not an Indian citizen, citing an eligibility condition in the recruitment advertisement which stated that applications were invited only from Indian citizens.
Key Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether a registered refugee and non-citizen could be removed from service solely on the basis of nationality, particularly when:
- The appointment was initially made without objection
- The individual was not an illegal immigrant
- Citizenship was never sought to be disclosed in the application form
Court’s Observations and Findings
1. Article 14 Applies to Non-Citizens
Rejecting SBI’s preliminary objection that a non-citizen cannot maintain a writ petition, the Court clarified that Article 226 of the Constitution is not confined to citizens alone.
The Court observed that:
“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.”
While non-citizens cannot invoke Articles 15, 16, and 19, the Court held that citizenship is immaterial when arbitrariness or discrimination under Article 14 is alleged.
2. Termination Solely on Nationality Is Arbitrary
Justice Chandangoudar held that SBI’s action was arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of the right to equality. The Court emphasized that:
“Merely because the recruitment advertisement stipulated that applications were invited only from Indian citizens, the same cannot, by itself, constitute a valid ground for termination of services, particularly when the petitioner was initially appointed without any demur.”
3. Petitioner’s Residence Was Lawful
The Court noted that the petitioner’s stay in India was lawfully protected under the Immigration and Foreigners (Exemption) Order, 2025, which exempts registered Sri Lankan Tamil refugees from passport and visa requirements.
Accordingly, her residence could not be characterised as illegal.
4. No Suppression or Fraud by the Petitioner
Rejecting SBI’s allegation of suppression of nationality, the Court recorded that:
- The application form did not contain any column requiring disclosure of citizenship
- The petitioner had disclosed her place of birth
- There was no material to suggest fraudulent conduct
5. Legitimate Expectation and Right to Livelihood
Taking note of the petitioner’s long, uninterrupted service since 2008, the Court held that terminating her employment at this stage would:
- Defeat her legitimate expectation
- Deprive her of her right to livelihood
The Court also considered humanitarian factors, including:
- Her marriage to an Indian citizen
- Her two children being Indian citizens
- Her consistent performance and receipt of incentives
Relief Granted by the Court
The Madras High Court quashed the termination order issued by SBI in 2013. However, it clarified that:
“This order is passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and shall not be treated as a precedent.”
The Court further clarified that the right of SBI to restrict employment to Indian citizens in appropriate cases remains open and was not adjudicated in this matter.
Significance of the Judgment
This decision is significant because it:
- Reinforces Article 14 protection against arbitrary State action, irrespective of citizenship
- Affirms that refugees lawfully residing in India are entitled to constitutional remedies
- Highlights the importance of fairness, proportionality, and legitimate expectation in public employment
- Balances institutional autonomy with constitutional values
Conclusion
The Madras High Court’s ruling underscores that nationality alone cannot be the basis for terminating employment, particularly where the individual has been lawfully residing in India and has served for years without objection. While preserving the employer’s right to frame eligibility conditions, the judgment sends a strong message against retrospective, arbitrary, and discriminatory actions by State instrumentalities.
In an era where migration, refugee protection, and employment rights increasingly intersect, this judgment reaffirms the constitutional commitment to equality and fairness, even beyond citizenship.
