New Delhi: A significant number of advocates and retired judges, on 9 December, voiced their strong objections to what they have called a “motivated campaign” targeting Chief Justice of India Surya Kant over his remarks in proceedings concerning the Rohingyas.
They were responding to an open letter criticising the Supreme Court’s handling of the matter. This earlier letter, dated 5 December, was written by another group of advocates and ex-judges with the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms, whereas the latest is a rebuttal.
Hearing a matter on 2 December, CJI Kant asked orally whether the Centre ever declared the Rohingyas “refugees” and whether individuals who crossed the border illegally could demand full procedural protections under Indian law, triggering a controversy.
“If they do not have legal status to stay in India, and you are an intruder, we have a very sensitive border on 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?…. What is the problem in sending them back?” the CJI, at the time, asked.
The 5 December open letter conveyed concerns over the CJI’s statements, including his questions about the Rohingyas’ legal status and their basic entitlements while equating them with “intruders” who “dig tunnels”.
This campaign against the CJI ’s comments, Tuesday’s letter rebutted, was an attempt to delegitimise the judiciary by “mischaracterising a routine courtroom proceedings as an act of prejudice”. The letter reaffirmed the full confidence of those who framed it not only in the court but also in the CJI’s discharge of constitutional duties.
The judges—some of them with the Supreme Court in the past—defended the CJI, noting that he was under attack merely for asking a fundamental legal question: “Who, in law, has granted the status that is being claimed before the court?” They insisted that determining rights and entitlements requires this threshold legal query to be addressed first.
Moreover, they argued, the campaign against the CJI suppressed the bench’s clear affirmation that no human being on Indian soil—whether citizen or foreigner—could be subjected to torture, disappearance, or inhuman treatment and that the dignity of all persons must be respected.
The letter further said that accusing the court of “dehumanisation” while suppressing its affirmation in the dignity of all was a serious distortion of what the court had stated.
The judges, who were part of this latest campaign, restated their key legal positions, underpinning the court’s approach. They emphasised that India had “consciously chosen not to join” the international treaty regime that governed refugees. India is neither a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention nor its 1967 Protocol.
India’s obligations arose from its own Constitution, domestic laws, and general human rights norms, the group stressed, adding that the Rohingyas had not entered India as “refugees” under Indian law. Since their entry was often irregular or illegal, they could not unilaterally convert that position into a legally recognised “refugee” status, merely by assertion, the retired judges stressed.
They highlighted a serious concern over how foreign nationals—after illegally entering India—obtained identity documents, such as Aadhaar and ration cards. They warned of the misuse of these instruments. For citizens or lawfully resident persons, the phenomenon “corrodes the integrity of our identification and welfare systems”, they said.
To address these security and fraud issues, the judges, in their letter today, supported “a court-monitored SIT into the illegal procurement of Indian identity and welfare documents by foreign nationals, who have entered Bharat in violation of law”.
The SIT would not only investigate the illegal procurement of Indian identity documents, but also identify officials, as well as intermediaries involved, and expose any organised trafficking or security-linked networks exploiting humanitarian concerns, they stated.
Additionally, the judges defended CJI Kant, saying his observations reflected a necessary constitutional balance and insisted on legality and national security, but it unequivocally rejected inhuman treatment, as well.
(Edited by Madhurita Goswami)
Also Read: Once a ‘whistleblower’, now convicted for money laundering: Who is ex-IAS Pradeep Sharma