New Delhi, Dec. 2 -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed pointed questions at the legal standing of Rohingyas living in India, asking whether those who entered the country without authorisation could seek protections on par with citizens while large sections of the population continue to face economic hardship. The remarks came from a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, sitting with Justice Joymalya Bagchi, during the hearing of a habeas corpus petition concerning the alleged disappearance of several Rohingyas from police custody in Delhi. The matter has now been adjourned to December 16.
The petition, filed by rights activist Rita Manchanda, alleged that a group of Rohingyas had been picked up by Delhi Police in May and that their families had received no information about where they were taken. As the counsel argued that the individuals should be produced before the court, the bench sought clarity on their legal status and questioned whether such a plea could be sustained.
The Chief Justice asked whether people who had crossed the border illegally could demand extensive rights from the Indian state, remarking, "If they do not have legal status to stay in India, and you are an intruder, we have a very sensitive border in the north India side. If an intruder comes, do we give them a red carpet welcome saying we would like to give you all facilities." He followed this by asking, "What is the problem in sending them back."
Pointing to the country's socioeconomic pressures, the Chief Justice said India must prioritise the needs of its own impoverished citizens. He noted that those who entered without permission could not insist upon a full suite of entitlements. "First you enter, you cross the border illegally. You dug a tunnel or crossed the fence and entered India illegally. Then you say, now that I have entered, your laws must apply to me and say, I am entitled to food, I am entitled to shelter, my children are entitled to education. Do we want to stretch the law like this," he asked.
The petitioner drew the court's attention to a 2020 order stating that Rohingyas could be deported only after due process. The bench responded that while procedural safeguards must be observed, the state also bears responsibility towards its own vulnerable citizens. "We also have poor people in the country. They are citizens. Are they not entitled to certain benefits and amenities? Why not concentrate on them," the Chief Justice said, adding that even in cases of illegal entry, the authorities must not resort to coercive methods. However, he questioned whether a writ of habeas corpus could be used in the manner sought by the petitioner.
The bench acknowledged that any attempt at repatriation could raise "logistical issues." Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, submitted that the plea lacked merit because it had not been filed by an affected individual and therefore lacked locus standi.
The court recalled earlier hearings in which the broader legal questions concerning Rohingyas had been outlined. On July 31, while examining multiple petitions, it had noted that the primary issue was whether the group should be categorised as refugees or as illegal entrants, and that all other questions would flow from that determination. "The first major issue is simple, are they refugees or illegal entrants," the Chief Justice had observed at the time.
The bench reiterated that several key questions remained pending: whether Rohingyas were entitled to be recognised as refugees and, if so, what protections and benefits they could claim; whether deportation actions taken by the Centre and states were lawful if they were held to be illegal entrants; whether such individuals could be detained indefinitely or should be released on bail; and whether those living in camps had been assured basic amenities such as water, sanitation and education. It also noted the issue of whether the government was obligated to deport illegal entrants strictly in accordance with law.
The court has divided the pending petitions into three groups, separating those relating specifically to Rohingyas from unrelated matters. It said each group would be heard on consecutive Wednesdays. It also stated that on the question of deportation, it could only set guiding principles.
Earlier this year, on May 16, the court had criticised petitioners who claimed that 43 Rohingyas, including women and children, had been left in the Andaman Sea for deportation to Myanmar, describing the claim as unfounded at a difficult time for the country. On May 8, the court had said that anyone found to be a foreigner under Indian law would have to be deported, and that identity cards issued by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees would not override domestic statutes.
Published by HT Digital Content Services with permission from Millennium Post.