PRIME Minister Theresa May’s miserable time in the courts is continuing with Scottish appeal court judges finding in favour of an Indian citizen she tried to deport.

Three judges at the Court of Session found in favour of Vishal Suri against the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the post held by Theresa May at the time Suri was refused leave to remain in Scotland with his British fiancee.

The loss in the highest court in Scotland follows two setbacks at the UK Supreme Court on Wednesday when May’s previous assertion as Home Secretary, that a Lithuanian woman and her Pakistani fiancé had to be deported because they had arranged a sham marriage, was thrown out by the Justices.

May’s government also lost an Employment Tribunal fees case which means the taxpayer must foot the bill for £32 million of refunds to those who had paid fees now adjudged unlawful.

The latest case centres on the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) which May is known to detest and which she wishes replaced by a British Bill of Rights.

Suri had sought a judicial review of May’s decision in 2014 to deport him. He claimed he had the right to a family life under article 8 of the ECHR.

He had arrived from India on a visitor’s visa in 2009 and was found to be an “overstayer” and was arrested by police and taken to Dungavel Detention Centre in March, 2014.

However, in 2012, he had met a woman known only in court as JT and had lived with her since June of that year, with the intention of marrying “in the near future”.

The court noted that the fiancée was British, had lived all her life in the United Kingdom, had all her family in the United Kingdom, required medication from the NHS, could not speak Hindi or Punjabi and had no ties with India. For these reasons, lawyers for Suri argued that his removal would not be proportionate and would breach his Article 8 rights.

The judgement noted that the Home Secretary at the time – May –rejected the petitioner’s Article 8 claim. Lord Glennie issued a written judgement on behalf of himself, Lady Paton and Lord Brodie.

He wrote: “In her decision letter dated 21 April 2014 she stated (1) that it had not been demonstrated that the petitioner was in a genuine and subsisting relationship with JT and (2), even if he was in such a relationship, his removal ... would not breach his Article 8 rights.

“In addition, in that same letter, the Secretary of State certified that the petitioner’s human rights claim was “clearly unfounded” in terms of section 94(2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.”

It was the latter point on which the case turned. Lord Glennie stated: “It falls to this court to consider the matter afresh, albeit only in the context of a challenge to the Secretary of State’s certification under section 94(2) of the 2002 Act that the petitioner’s human rights claim is ‘clearly unfounded’.”

It was May’s argument of "clearly unfounded" that the Scottish judges rejected.

Lord Glennie wrote: “We emphasise that we are not concerned here with the question whether any appeal against the refusal of the petitioner’s human rights claim will succeed, we are simply concerned with the question whether it is clearly unfounded.

“The test whether a claim is ‘clearly unfounded’ has been considered in a number of decided cases. We do not propose to add to that jurisprudence. The words are clear and mean what they say. “What has to be shown in this case is that, in a proportionality assessment carried out in this case, the petitioner will have no prospect of persuading a decision-maker, a tribunal or a court that his claim to respect for family life is sufficiently strong to outweigh the public interest in his removal.”

Lord Glennie added: “A proportionality assessment of that sort is highly fact sensitive and we cannot say with any confidence that the petitioner’s claim is bound to fail.”