New Delhi: In a sharp exchange that laid bare the constitutional and humanitarian tensions around India’s handling of Rohingya migrants, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant Tuesday asked whether the Government of India had ever declared Rohingya “refugees”, and whether individuals who crossed the border illegally could demand full procedural protections under Indian law.
“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?” the CJI asked. “What is the problem in sending them back?” he asked.
The observations came while the CJI was hearing a habeas corpus petition alleging the disappearance of a group of Rohingya detained by Delhi Police earlier this year.
The petitioner informed the bench that five Rohingya were allegedly picked up by the Delhi Police in May and that their current whereabouts were unknown.
Responding, CJI Kant asked: “Where is the order of the Government of India declaring them as refugees? Refugee is a well defined legal term and there is a prescribed authority by the Government to declare them. If there is no legal status of a refugee, and somebody is an intruder, and he enters illegally, do we have an obligation to keep that fellow here?”
The Chief Justice stressed that without formal recognition, such entrants cannot assume entitlements. “First you enter, you cross the border illegally. You dug a tunnel or cross the fence and enter 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?”
‘What is the problem in sending them back?’
CJI Kant repeatedly emphasised the national security context, noting India’s “very sensitive border in the North India side”. He asked, “If an intruder comes, do we give them a red carpet welcome saying we would like to give you all facilities?” When the counsel submitted that Rohingya must be deported only “as per the law,” the CJI asked, “What is the problem in sending them back?”
The petitioner’s counsel clarified that the plea was not seeking refugee status but raising concerns about “custodial disappearance” and the need to follow established deportation procedures.
CJI Kant said migrants cannot claim privileges denied to many Indian 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?” However, he underscored that even illegal entrants cannot be subjected to “third-degree methods”.
When the counsel said the petition merely sought lawful deportation, the CJI disagreed: “That’s not what you are asking for. You are asking for a writ of habeas to bring them back.”
The bench of CJI and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said the matter would be heard along with connected petitions on the legal status of Rohingya migrants.
(Edited by Viny Mishra)
Also read: BJP is othering Bengalis. Its Hindi imperialism won’t work
I have been a bit critical of him because of his stance on freedom of speech but this kind of placates my disapproval for him. Just change your stance on freedom of speech and I would stop whining about the new CJI because it seems like he is on the right path on other matters.