Introduction:

In Santon Lama v. State of Kerala and Others, WP (Crl) No. 1421/2025, the Kerala High Court confronted a deeply unsettling situation involving the mysterious disappearance of Suraj Lama, an Indian citizen deported from Kuwait who went missing shortly after landing in Kochi. The habeas corpus plea was filed by his son, who asserted that the State authorities had failed in their constitutional obligation to safeguard a citizen who returned to India in a vulnerable state. The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha expressed profound distress, remarking that the disappearance of a deported citizen on Indian soil—followed by the recovery of an unidentified body suspected to be his—raised grave concerns about systemic lapses in protection, vigilance, and protocol compliance by police, airport authorities, and other State machinery. The Bench noted that while DNA tests were underway to confirm whether the recovered body belonged to the missing man, the unfolding facts pointed to potential negligence that could endanger any citizen, emphasizing that constitutional guarantees do not end at immigration counters. The Court viewed the matter not merely through the lens of law but as a profound civic concern, questioning the treatment of returning citizens and the sincerity of agencies entrusted with their safety.

Arguments of the Petitioner:

The petitioner, represented by Advocate Parvathi Menon, argued in a unified and urgent voice that the disappearance of Suraj Lama reflected a glaring breach of constitutional duties by State authorities responsible for his safety after deportation. It was submitted that the man had arrived in India as a deportee—a category of citizens who are often distressed, mentally disoriented, or emotionally vulnerable—and therefore required heightened supervision and protection, especially since he was returning without support. The petitioner emphasized that despite the Airport Authority’s responsibility to follow specific protocols for receiving deported citizens, no meaningful steps were taken to ensure his safe transit or to monitor his movement after he exited the airport. Instead, he was reportedly seen wandering in a confused and vulnerable condition, yet no authority intervened. The petitioner further stressed that even after the missing-person FIR was lodged, it emerged that the man had come into contact with police officials twice—interactions that should have triggered the mandatory protective custody provisions under the Mental Health Act. The petitioner contended that the police failed to exercise their statutory obligations to safeguard a citizen who was clearly in distress, leading to his disappearance and suspected death. The absence of coordination between police departments, airport authorities, and medical institutions was highlighted as a major systemic failure. The petitioner submitted that the Court must treat this episode as a constitutional emergency, because if a citizen can vanish in such circumstances despite being under State radar, it revealed a collapse in basic protections due under Articles 14, 19, 21, and 51A of the Constitution. Given the discovery of a body near Kalamassery and scientific tests underway, the petitioner urged the Court to hold authorities accountable, ensure full disclosure, and provide transparency regarding protocols, lapses, and the chain of events from the moment the deportee landed in Kochi until he was last seen wandering. She argued that only decisive judicial intervention could prevent such tragedies and restore public trust.

Arguments of the State / Respondents:

The State authorities offered explanations but found themselves confronted by the Court’s growing concern over procedural gaps. The respondents attempted to assure the Bench that all available steps were being taken to trace the missing man and ascertain whether the recovered body was his. They indicated that a missing-person FIR had been promptly registered and investigations were underway, including the collection of CCTV footage, witness statements, and coordination with the Medical College Hospital undertaking DNA profiling. The State contended that deportation handling involves a complex chain of responsibilities shared between airport immigration, security agencies, and local police, and that no deliberate negligence occurred. The police maintained that they had acted within the limits of information available to them, and while they acknowledged that the individual had come into contact with the police at least twice, they argued that at those points the man did not appear to exhibit mental incapacity warranting involuntary protective custody. They also contended that the Mental Health Act required specific indicators of mental instability, which were not demonstrably present. Regarding the airport protocols, the State suggested that deportations often involve handover documentation from the sending nation, and in this case such details were still being verified. The respondents refuted the suggestion that the disappearance resulted from willful ignorance and submitted that an internal inquiry had been initiated. They maintained that they were cooperating fully with the Habeas Corpus proceedings and emphasized that investigating agencies were working with urgency to determine whether the body recovered from Kalamassery belonged to the missing person, noting that such scientific processes take time. They urged the Court not to presume negligence before the results of ongoing investigations were complete, expressing that the administration remained committed to transparency and accountability.

Court’s Judgment / Observations:

The Kerala High Court’s observations, delivered with unusual emotional force, reflected not only judicial concern but also civic anguish. The Bench declared that the disappearance of a deported citizen after safely arriving on Indian soil was “shocking,” emphasizing that constitutional protections are not theoretical but must manifest in timely, humane action. The Court remarked that the facts painted a disturbing picture: a vulnerable man arrived in India, was reportedly wandering the streets, was seen by multiple authorities including the police, yet was not taken into protective custody—an omission the Bench described as a fundamental failure of statutory duty under the Mental Health Act. Justice Ramachandran observed that the Act specifically mandates that any person found disoriented, distressed, or wandering without support be treated as vulnerable and placed under temporary protective custody. The Court asked pointedly why the police failed to act despite encountering him twice—moments that should have triggered mental-health-related protocol. The Bench noted that such neglect could happen to any citizen and expressed that judges were reacting not merely as judicial officers but as “concerned citizens of the Republic.” The Court demanded a cogent and comprehensive explanation from airport authorities, criticizing the apparent lack of accountability. It reiterated that deported citizens must be handled with structured protocol because they are often distressed or confused, and a lapse at this stage could expose them to harm. The Court lamented a disturbing pattern in the State machinery, observing that Indian citizens are treated as “valuable diplomatic assets” abroad—especially when detained or penalized in foreign jurisdictions—but seem to lose that value when they return home. It described the Constitution as “the finest, most organic constitution in the world,” stressing that under it, every citizen must be treated like a sovereign whose life and liberty are of immeasurable worth. The recovery of a body near Kalamassery, suspected to be that of Suraj Lama, heightened the Court’s alarm, leading the Bench to underscore that “we cannot take this lightly because every citizen is invaluable and we may have lost a life—everybody is answerable.” The Court noted that the ongoing scientific tests and DNA analysis must be expedited and ordered both the Superintendent of the Medical College and the Director General of Police to file detailed reports explaining the lapses, chain of events, and protocol compliance. The matter was posted for the next day with the explicit expectation that the authorities produce clear, transparent, and convincing explanations. The Court’s judgment—though interim—laid down a powerful message: the disappearance of a citizen returning from abroad is a constitutional issue implicating life, liberty, dignity, and State accountability, and no procedural justification can excuse failure in protecting the vulnerable.