Facts
- Mr. Karamjit Singh Chahal, an Indian citizen, entered the United Kingdom unlawfully in 1971 and was later granted indefinite leave to remain in 1974.
- He became active in the Sikh community and organized protests against the Indian government.
- The UK government alleged that Mr. Chahal was associated with a terrorist group and posed a threat to national security.
- Despite repeated arrests for suspicion of conspiracy, no charges were brought against him.
- The Home Secretary ordered his deportation on public interest grounds due to national security concerns.
- Evidence was presented indicating that Mr. Chahal would face a real risk of torture or death if returned to India, based on his prominence and widespread human rights violations by Indian security forces.
- Mr. Chahal's case reached the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) after all domestic remedies were exhausted.
Issues
- Whether the UK government could lawfully deport Mr. Chahal to India despite a real risk of torture, relying on national security concerns.
- Whether the absolute prohibition of torture under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights allowed for any exception due to an individual’s threat to national security.
- Whether diplomatic assurances from the Indian government were sufficient to mitigate the risk of torture.
- Whether the principle of non-refoulement applied in cases involving national security threats.
Decision
- The ECtHR affirmed that Article 3 of the ECHR provides an absolute prohibition against torture, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, permitting no derogation, regardless of the individual’s conduct or status.
- The Court found that substantial evidence existed of a real risk that Mr. Chahal would be subjected to prohibited treatment if deported to India.
- The assurances provided by the Indian government were deemed insufficient to remove this risk.
- The Court held that deporting Mr. Chahal to India would violate Article 3 of the ECHR.
- It was determined that the absolute protection under Article 3 outweighs potential threats to national security.
Legal Principles
- Article 3 of the ECHR is non-derogable; its protection applies in all circumstances, including threats to national security.
- The principle of non-refoulement prohibits the return of individuals to countries where there is a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.
- State interests in national security do not override the fundamental rights protected by Article 3.
- Diplomatic assurances may be insufficient if they fail to guarantee protection against prohibited treatment.
Conclusion
Chahal v United Kingdom established that states cannot deport individuals to countries where they face a real risk of torture, regardless of national security interests, reaffirming the absolute nature of Article 3 and solidifying the principle of non-refoulement within the ECHR framework.