Supreme Court Questions Legal Status of Rohingyas in India: A Controversial Debate

Supreme Court's Inquiry into Rohingya Status

New Delhi: On Tuesday, the Supreme Court raised critical questions regarding the legal standing of Rohingyas residing in India, suggesting that 'intruders' should not receive a 'red carpet welcome' while many Indian citizens face poverty.

During a habeas corpus petition hearing filed by rights activist Rita Manchanda, who reported the disappearance of several Rohingyas from custody, the bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi expressed their concerns.

The case has been postponed until December 16.

The petitioner's counsel claimed that some Rohingyas 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? What prevents us from sending them back?" He emphasized that India has many impoverished citizens who need attention.

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 extend our laws in this manner?"

The petitioner referenced a 2020 Supreme Court ruling that mandated Rohingyas could only be deported following due process.

CJI Kant remarked, "We have our own citizens in need. Shouldn't we prioritize them? While we shouldn't mistreat anyone, we must consider the rights of our own people first."

The bench acknowledged that seeking repatriation could lead to 'logistical issues'.

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

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

Justice Kant noted, "The first question is straightforward: are they refugees or illegal entrants?"

The bench highlighted several key issues for consideration, including whether Rohingyas should be recognized as refugees and what rights they would possess.

It also questioned the justification of the government's actions in deporting those deemed illegal entrants.

The court raised concerns about the indefinite detention of illegal entrants and their rights to bail under certain conditions.

Additionally, it examined whether Rohingyas living in refugee camps received basic necessities such as water, sanitation, and education.

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

It indicated that it would address these matters separately on consecutive Wednesdays.

The court suggested 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 were forcibly deported to Myanmar, stating, "In difficult times, such fanciful ideas arise."

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

On May 8, the court reiterated that if Rohingya refugees are classified as 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 provide legal protection under Indian statutes.