Supreme Court of India
Credit: PTI Photo
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a plea by an American citizen seeking asylum in India as he apprehended he had discovered an alternative to petroleum and could face persecution upon his return to the United States.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said, “We are not inclined to entertain the present petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly”.
Additional solicitor general Vikramjeet Banerjee, appearing for the Centre, submitted before the court that the visa was granted to the petitioner in December 2023 for 365 days and it expires on December 9, 2024, and it does not expire tomorrow.
“But you cannot stay for one shot for 180 days at one particular place. He has to go back to the next country and come back. I am not in a position to advise him on which country,” Banerjee said.
The bench said that it is his choice whether he wanted to visit some other country or not.
The petitioner Claude David Convisser, appearing in-person, said if he were to leave India then he may be harmed.
"They will do all kinds of things to me and imprison me,” he feared.
“Are you facing any prosecution in the US?”, the bench asked.
The petitioner replied that he is not facing any prosecution in the US and mentioned an incident where he was allegedly harmed. "I am lucky to be alive today,” he said.
“We are not here to take care…your government will take care of that,” the bench said, adding that there are courts’ in the US, which can take care of his concerns.
The bench also asked Convisser in a lighter vein, “My country is better than your country? Can you make that statement? Make a public statement: this country is better than your country”.
The bench also did not accept his contention regarding an alternative to the petroleum.
“Petroleum industry has nothing to do. Jatropha cultivation has been going on in India for long. They have not been able to find a substitute till date," the bench said.
After hearing submissions from the petitioner, the bench dismissed the plea.