Former judges, lawyers write to CJI Surya Kant over remarks on Rohingya refugees
Guwahati: A group of former judges, senior lawyers, and members of the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) wrote an open letter on Friday to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant.
They expressed concern over remarks made by a Supreme Court bench led by the CJI on December 2 during the hearing of a plea related to the alleged custodial disappearance of Rohingya refugees.
The signatories stated that the CJI’s comments have a significant influence and said that denying constitutional protections to refugees could set an improper precedent.
The letter noted that certain observations made during the hearing, including questions about the Rohingya’s legal status as refugees, equating them with illegal entrants, comparing them to people “who dig tunnels,” and asking whether they were entitled to basic services, were inconsistent with constitutional principles.
The signatories said these remarks contributed to negatively portraying Rohingya refugees, despite protections under Indian law and international norms.
The habeas corpus plea was filed by Rita Manchanda seeking information on the whereabouts of five Rohingya individuals who went missing after being detained. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed the request.
During the hearing, the CJI was quoted by Live Law as asking whether there was any government order declaring the Rohingyas as refugees, noting that a designated authority must grant refugee status.
He questioned whether India was obligated to accommodate people entering illegally.
The CJI also said that while illegal migrants could not be subjected to custodial torture, the country’s resources should primarily serve its own citizens.
Signatories to the letter include former judges A.P. Shah, K. Chandru, and Anjana Prakash; legal professionals such as Mohan Gopal, Rajeev Dhavan, Chander Uday Singh, Colin Gonsalves, Kamini Jaiswal, Mihir Desai, Gopal Shankar Narayan, Gautam Bhatia, and Shahrukh Alam; along with CJAR members and activists like Prashant Bhushan, Nikhil Dey, Anjali Bhardwaj, Amrita Johri, Apar Gupta, Vipul Mudgal, Beena Pallical, Annie Raja, and Meera Sanghamitra.
The signatories said that using poverty in India as a basis to deny constitutional protections to refugees is not justified.
They pointed out that Article 21 safeguards the rights of all persons in India, not only citizens.
They referred to the Supreme Court ruling in NHRC v. State of Arunachal Pradesh (1996), which held that the state is obligated to protect the life and liberty of every individual.
The letter also stated that the Rohingya have been described internationally as one of the most persecuted communities and are escaping systematic violence in Myanmar. Comparing them to intruders, the signatories argued, affects the judiciary’s moral standing.
They noted that the Rohingya are a stateless minority fleeing long-term discrimination and violence, including acts described as ethnic cleansing.
The letter further said that determining refugee status is declaratory in nature and that India’s Standard Operating Procedure for foreign nationals seeking refugee status aligns with international guidelines.
The signatories stated that any deportation or detention without assessing individual claims violates Article 21 and the principle of non-refoulement.
They also referred to India’s history of hosting refugees from Tibet, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh, noting that refugees have traditionally been treated differently from other migrants.
Addressing the CJI, the signatories stated that judicial comments have a significant influence on courts, governments, and the public.
They cautioned that statements undermining the dignity of vulnerable groups may affect constitutional values and public confidence in the judiciary.
They urged the CJI to reinforce the judiciary’s commitment to constitutional morality, human dignity, and equal justice in public statements, court remarks, and judgments.
The letter stated that the authority of the Supreme Court depends not only on its decisions but also on the manner in which those decisions are delivered.