Non-Citizens Can File Writ Petition Against Arbitrary State Action: Madras High Court Sets Aside SBI's Termination Of Sri Lankan National

“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,” the court said.

Justice Hemant Chandangoudar also noted that the rehabilitation scheme for Sri Lankan Tamil refugees provides for benefits such as shelter, education, and employment in India, particularly in the State of Tamil Nadu. The court thus opined that the State Bank of India's action, in denying employment opportunity to an otherwise eligible candidate, merely on the ground that she was a Sri Lankan national was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

“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 Court 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,” the court said.

The court was dealing with a petition filed by G Thirukalyanamalar, a registered Tamil Sri Lankan refugee, challenging the action of State Bank of India, terminating her services. Thirukalyanamalar was appointed as Officer-Marketing and Recovery (Rural) in the bank in the year 2008. Later, when the bank called for applications for recruitment of Probationary officers (Rural Business) from existing officers – Marketing & Recovery (Rural), she applied and her name was included in the final list of selected candidates.

However, during scrutiny of documents, noting that Thirukalyanamalar was a Sri Lankan national, the bank took a decision to terminate her from service. This order was challenged in the present plea.

The petitioner argued that she could not have been deprived of her right to employment merely because she was a Sri Lankan Tamil refugee, and such a denial would be against Article 14 of the Constitution. It was also submitted that her grandparents, who were born in India, had migrated to Sri Lanka and that she was an Indian by birth.

The Bank, on the other hand, argued that it had explicitly invited applications from Indian citizens and the petitioner, being a Sri Lankan national, had applied for the post suppressing her nationality. It was also argued that the petitioner, not being an Indian citizen, had no locus standi to maintain the present plea, as the invocation of fundamental rights was available only to citizens of the country.

The court, however, rejected this argument and observed that a writ petition could be maintained when the challenge was to a State action alleging it to be arbitrary and discriminatory.

The court further noted that the Director of Rehabilitation, Government of Tamil Nadu has formulated various schemes for the rehabilitation of Sri Lankan Tamil refugees. The court also noted that the requirement of passport or other travel document under Section 3 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act was exempted for Sri Lankan Tamil nationals who have taken shelter in India upto 9^th January 2015.

In the present case, the court noted that the petitioner entered India in 1990 and completed her education in the State of Tamil Nadu. The court also noted that the petitioner had been awarded educational qualifications duly recognised by the competent authorities of the State. The court also noted that the application form had not sought details of citizenship and thus it could not be said that the petitioner had concealed her nationality or citizenship.

While the court agreed that the bank had a right to restrict non-citizens from applying for post, the court noted that in the present case, the petitioner was already employed in the bank and had continued in service uninterruptedly since 2008. The court thus noted that the bank could not, now, seek to terminate her service and such action would be arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory.

The court thus set aside the termination order by the Bank.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. K. M. Ramesh Senior Advocate for Mr. V. Subramani

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. C. Mohan Ms. A. Rexy Josephine Mary for M/s. King and Partridge

Case Title: G Thirukalyanamalar v State Bank of India and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 45

Case No: W.P.No.18835 of 2013

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment