The Supreme Court Chief Justice Surya Kant, who questioned the Rohingya refugees’ status, calling them intruders who dig tunnels and who have to be fed from national resources, drew strong disagreement from a group of former judges, senior advocates and members of the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms, describing the remarks as not only setting a dangerous precedent but also going against the constitutionally guaranteed entitlements to refugees.
They argued that denying basic entitlements by invoking the poverty of Indian citizens risks creating a hierarchy of rights, and they insisted that Article 21 safeguards life and liberty for all human beings irrespective of citizenship.
The disagreement was expressed through an open letter issued on Friday, in which the signatories conveyed deep concern over the observations made by a bench headed by the Chief Justice while hearing a habeas corpus plea relating to the alleged custodial disappearance of five Rohingya refugees detained earlier.
The signatories, comprising former judges A.P. Shah, K. Chandru and Anjana Prakash along with senior legal figures such as Mohan Gopal, Rajeev Dhavan, Chander Uday Singh, Colin Gonsalves, Kamini Jaiswal, Mihir Desai, Gopal Shankar Narayan, Gautam Bhatia and Shahrukh Alam, stated that questioning the legal status of Rohingya refugees and likening them to individuals who unlawfully enter the country undermines constitutional values, and they emphasised that such comparisons diminish the equal humanity of a persecuted community.
CJAR members and activists including Prashant Bhushan, Nikhil Dey, Anjali Bhardwaj, Amrita Johri, Apar Gupta, Vipul Mudgal, Beena Pallical, Annie Raja and Meera Sanghamitra also endorsed the letter, and together they highlighted that remarks casting doubt on whether refugees are entitled to food, shelter and education contribute to a narrative that dehumanises people whose rights are protected under domestic and international law.
The letter was issued in the context of a petition filed by activist Rita Manchanda, who sought information on five Rohingya detainees who went missing after being taken into custody, and although the solicitor general Tushar Mehta opposed the plea, the signatories maintained that the judiciary must uphold the constitutional protections available to every person in India.
They reminded the court that the National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh judgment had underlined the obligation of the state to protect all individuals, and they warned that framing refugees as intruders weakens the moral authority of judicial institutions.
In their comments, the signatories also referred to the longstanding persecution of the Rohingya community, noting that the United Nations has described them as one of the most persecuted minorities in the world, and they stressed that the community has fled ethnic cleansing and genocide in Myanmar in search of safety in neighbouring countries, including India.
They maintained that refugee status determination is declaratory rather than constitutive, and they noted that India’s own Standard Operating Procedure for individuals claiming refugee status aligns with international norms. They further stated that refoulement without due process, or detention without assessing refugee claims, violates Article 21 and erodes the right to non-refoulement recognised by Indian courts over the years.
The signatories recalled India’s history of hosting refugees from Tibet, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, and they argued that the country has long treated refugees as distinct from irregular migrants, thereby upholding humanitarian obligations despite not being a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention.