Madras High Court Imposes Cost On Joint Secretaries Of External And Home Affairs Ministry For Failing To Assist Court

The bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Sunder Mohan noted that the man had been repatriated to India and his sentence had been adapted to one under the Indian Law. However, there was no material to show that consent was obtained from Sri Lanka before the same.

The court also noted that despite repeated enquiries, the counsel was not able to show any communication, and in the absence of materials, the court could not infer that the Sri Lankan government had accepted or informed about the adoption of the sentence under Indian law. The court thus deemed it fit to impose costs.

“Despite our repeated enquiries, learned Counsel is unable to show us any exchange of communication making reference to order dated 29.07.2016, in the absence of which, we are not in a position to even infer that the Sri Lankan Government has accepted or even been informed about the adoption of the sentence of the Sri Lankan Court to Indian Law. R4 and R5 are put to terms and shall remit Rs.50,000/- to High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks,” the court said.

Though the order earlier mentioned that the Superintendent of Police, Puzhal Central Prison (4^th respondent in the case) and the Joint Secretary (External Affairs Ministry) must remit the amount, an order passed later clarified that the parties must be read as 5^th respondent and 6^th respondent (Joint Secretary of Home Affairs Ministry).

The court was dealing with a habeas corpus plea filed by Mohamed Sameer. Sameer's father, Zahir Hussain had been convicted by the Sri Lankan court on May 18, 2015 for life, for offence relating to drug trafficking, especially possession of 720 grams of heroin.

While serving the sentence, Hussain had sought repatriation to India in terms of 'Agreement between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka on the transfer of sentenced persons.'

The request was considered and by an order dated July 29, 2016, the Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs reduced the sentence on par with the sentence by an Indian Court. The sentence was reduced to one of 10 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1,00,000. It was ordered that once repatriated to India, Hussain would be incarcerated up to September 21, 2022.

Arguing that Hussain had been in custody even beyond this date, his son had approached the court by way of the habeas corpus plea stating that the prolonged detention was illegal, unconstitutional and void.

Though the counsel for the State pointed to Article 8 of the Agreement which dealt with Continued Enforcement of Sentence, the court noted that even as per this Article, the transferring State, the receiving state, India in the present case, was bound to obtain the consent of the transferring State, Sri Lanka, before adopting the sentence under Indian law.

In the present case, noting that such a procedure was not seen to have been adopted, the court imposed cost on the Ministries.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. M. Mohamed Saifulla for Ms. R. Bakiyalakshmi

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. C.R. Malarvannan, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) Mr.K.Ramanamoorthy, Senior Panel Counsel

Case Title: Mohamed Sameer v The Home Secretary and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 298

Case No: HCP No. 768 of 2026