The Supreme Court on Tuesday wondered whether Rohingya “refugees” should be granted a “red carpet welcome” at a time when the country was grappling with its own poverty, as it refrained from issuing any formal notice to the Union government on a plea alleging illegal custodial disappearance of five of them.
“You know they are intruders. We have very, very sensitive and porous borders on the Northern side. You know what has been happening in the country. Even if someone has come here illegally, do you just want a red carpet for them?” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, heading a bench, asked the counsel for the petitioner.
The bench, which included Justice Joymalya Bagchi, made the stinging oral observation while dealing with a habeas corpus petition filed by social activist Rita Manchanda, who, through her counsel, had pleaded that the Rohingya “refugees” were picked up by Delhi police early in May and their whereabouts are not known.
“We also have poor people in this country. They are citizens. Are they not entitled to certain benefits and amenities? Why not concentrate on them? It is true, even if somebody has entered illegally, we should not subject them to third degree methods,” the bench observed.
CJI Kant, however, wondered whether the petitioner was actually representing any person declared as a “refugee” by the government of India under any official notification.
“These people enter through tunnels and then say you (illegal intruders) are entitled to food, shelter, right to education for children etc. Do we want us to stretch the law like this? Asking habeas corpus, etc is a very fanciful idea!” the CJI remarked.
He added: “Where is the order of the Govt of India declaring the Rohingya as refugees? 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 counsel argued that if the missing persons were intruders, then they ought to be deported in accordance with the deportation laws.
Solicitor-general Tushar Mehta, however, opposed the petition, saying it was not filed by any aggrieved family but rather by a third person
who has no “locus standi” in the matter.
The bench later adjourned the matter to December 16, when it would be considered along with various other petitions relating to Rohingya “refugees” in the country.
Earlier on July 31, an earlier bench of Justice Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice N.K. Singh had decided to examine whether Rohingya should be considered as “refugees” or “illegal migrants” and had decided to pass appropriate directions to deal with the issue.
The bench had passed the earlier order in the wake of some 22-odd petitions being filed before it, mostly by individuals or organisations, opposing any move to deport them back to their country of origin, Myanmar.
The petitioners had pleaded that the court must examine whether the Rohingya who had been kept for prolonged periods in various detention camps can be declared as illegal foreign nationals. Besides the issue of Rohingya, some of the petitions were also related to alleged illegal immigrants declared as foreign nationals by the Foreigners Tribunals in Assam.
The bench had, at the last hearing, then framed the following issues for consideration:
n Whether Rohingya are entitled to be declared as refugees? If so, what protections are they entitled to?
n If they are not refugees and are illegal entrants, whether the action of the Union/states in deporting them is justified.
n Even if they have been held to be illegal entrants, can they be detained indefinitely or are they entitled to be released on bail, subject to conditions?
n Whether those not detained and in refugee camps have been provided basic amenities like water, sanitation, education, etc.
n If they are legal entrants, whether the union/states are entitled to deport them.