Supreme Court Questions Legal Status of Rohingya in India

Supreme Court's Inquiry into Rohingya Status

Guwahati, Dec 3: On Tuesday, the Supreme Court raised critical questions regarding the legal status of Rohingya individuals residing in India, questioning whether the country should extend a warm welcome to 'intruders' while its own citizens face poverty.

A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made these remarks during a habeas corpus petition hearing filed by rights activist Rita Manchanda, who reported the disappearance of several Rohingya individuals from custody.

The hearing has been postponed until December 16. The petitioner's counsel claimed that some Rohingya were detained by Delhi Police in May, with no updates on their current status.

Chief Justice Kant questioned, “If they lack legal status in India and are considered intruders, should we welcome them with open arms while our own citizens are struggling?” He emphasized the need to prioritize the welfare of India's impoverished population.

He further stated, “You illegally crossed the border, and now you expect our laws to protect you, demanding food, shelter, and education for your children. Should we really extend our laws in this manner?”

The petitioner referenced a 2020 Supreme Court ruling that mandated Rohingya deportations must follow legal procedures.

“We have our own citizens in need. Shouldn’t we focus on them instead? While we should not subject anyone to inhumane treatment, you are requesting a writ of habeas corpus to return them,” the Chief Justice remarked.

The bench noted that seeking repatriation could lead to logistical challenges.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the government, argued that the petition was not filed by an affected individual, questioning the petitioner's standing.

On July 31, the Supreme Court had previously stated that the primary issue in cases involving Rohingya is determining whether they are refugees or illegal entrants.

Justice Kant reiterated, “The fundamental question is whether they are refugees or illegal entrants.”

The bench acknowledged several broader issues arising from the petitions concerning the Rohingya.

“Are the Rohingya entitled to refugee status? If so, what rights and protections do they have?” the bench inquired.

It also considered whether the actions taken by the government to deport Rohingya, if deemed illegal entrants, were justified.

“If they are classified as illegal entrants, can they be held indefinitely, or are they entitled to bail under certain conditions?” the court asked.

Additionally, the court examined whether Rohingya living in refugee camps received basic necessities such as clean water, sanitation, and education.

“If they are illegal entrants, does the Indian government have a legal obligation to deport them?” it noted.

The bench categorized the petitions into three groups: those related to Rohingya, those unrelated, and one concerning a different issue entirely.

It stated that these groups would be addressed separately, scheduling hearings for consecutive Wednesdays.

The bench indicated that it could only establish principles regarding the deportation of those identified as illegal entrants.

On May 16, the Supreme Court criticized petitioners who claimed that 43 Rohingya refugees, including women and children, were forcibly deported to Myanmar, stating, “During challenging times, you present unrealistic proposals.”

It questioned the credibility of the evidence submitted by petitioner Mohammad Ismail and others, denying any further deportation relief, as similar requests had been previously rejected.

On May 8, the court stated that if Rohingya refugees were classified as foreigners under Indian law, they would need to be deported.

The court referenced its earlier ruling, noting that identity cards issued by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) might not provide legal protection under Indian law.