New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday sharply questioned the legal status of Rohingyas residing in India, asking whether “intruders” should be given a “red carpet welcome” while the country’s own citizens continue to grapple with poverty.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made these observations while hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by rights activist Rita Manchanda, alleging the disappearance of several Rohingyas from the custody of authorities in Delhi. The hearing has now been adjourned to December 16.
Manchanda’s counsel alleged that certain Rohingyas were taken into custody by Delhi Police in May, and their whereabouts remain unknown.
“If they do not have legal status to stay in India, and you are an intruder, we have a very sensitive border in the northern part of the country. If an intruder comes, do we give them a red carpet welcome, providing all facilities?” the CJI asked, adding, “What is the problem in sending them back? India is a country with many poor people. Shouldn’t our focus be on them?”
He further questioned the logic of extending legal protections to individuals who entered the country illegally. “First you cross the border illegally. Then you claim that the law must apply to you — that you are entitled to food, shelter, and education for your children. Do we want to stretch the law this way?” he asked.
The petitioner cited a Supreme Court order from 2020, which directed that Rohingyas must be deported only according to due procedure. CJI Kant emphasised that the country’s poor citizens are also entitled to benefits and amenities, asking, “Why not concentrate on them? It is true that even if somebody has entered illegally, we should not subject them to third-degree methods… You are asking for a writ of habeas corpus to bring them back.”
The bench noted that repatriation could pose “logistical issues.” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said the plea was not filed by an affected person, and the petitioner had no locus standi to file such a plea.
During a hearing on July 31 regarding a batch of petitions on Rohingyas, the top court had observed that the first issue to be determined is whether Rohingyas are refugees or illegal entrants. Justice Kant stressed, “The first major issue is simple: are they refugees or illegal entrants?”
The bench outlined the broad issues arising from the petitions: whether Rohingyas are entitled to be declared refugees, and if so, the protections, privileges, and rights they are entitled to; and if they are not refugees and are illegal entrants, whether the Centre and states were justified in deporting them. The court also asked whether illegal entrants can be detained indefinitely or are entitled to bail under conditions deemed fit by the court.
Another issue raised in the petitions is whether Rohingyas living in refugee camps, who have not been detained, have been provided basic amenities like drinking water, sanitation, and education. The bench stressed that if Rohingyas are illegal entrants, the government is obligated to deport them according to the law.
The bench segregated the petitions into three groups: one relating to Rohingyas, another unrelated to Rohingyas, and one concerning a different matter. Each group will be heard separately on consecutive Wednesdays. On the point of illegal entrants and the State’s responsibility to deport them, the court indicated it would only lay down guiding principles.
Earlier, on May 16, the Supreme Court criticised petitioners who claimed that 43 Rohingya refugees, including women and children, were being deported to Myanmar via the Andaman Sea, saying, “When the country is passing through a difficult time, you come out with fanciful ideas.” The court questioned the authenticity of the material submitted by petitioner Mohammad Ismail and others, refusing to stay further deportation, noting that similar relief had been denied previously.
On May 8, the court had remarked that if Rohingya refugees in India are found to be foreigners under Indian law, they must be deported. It also noted that identity cards issued by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) may not protect them under Indian law.
With PTI inputs