Chahal v United Kingdom (1996) 23 EHRR 413

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

1. Whether the UK government could lawfully deport Mr. Chahal to India despite a real risk of torture, relying on national security concerns.
2. 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.
3. Whether diplomatic assurances from the Indian government were sufficient to mitigate the risk of torture.
4. 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.