SC questions legal status of Rohingya in India, hearing adjourned to December 16

Guwahati: The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the legal status of Rohingya living in India, asking whether individuals who enter the country illegally should receive a “red carpet welcome” while Indian citizens face poverty.

A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi raised the issue while hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by rights activist Rita Manchanda, which alleged that several Rohingya had gone missing from authorities’ custody in Delhi. The hearing has now been adjourned to December 16.

The petitioner claimed that certain Rohingya were taken into custody by the Delhi Police in May, but their whereabouts remain unknown.

Chief Justice Kant questioned the premise of the petition, saying, “If they do not have legal status to stay in India and are intruders, should we give them all facilities while our own citizens struggle?” He added, “What is the problem in sending them back?”

The bench highlighted that India has a large population living in poverty, and the state should prioritize citizens’ welfare. The CJI remarked, “First, you cross the border illegally. Then you demand rights such as food, shelter, and education for your children. Should our laws stretch to accommodate this?”

The petitioner cited a 2020 Supreme Court order stating that the Rohingya must be deported following due process. The CJI responded, “Even if someone enters illegally, we must avoid third-degree treatment. But we also have poor citizens—shouldn’t we focus on them?”

The bench noted potential logistical challenges if repatriation were to proceed. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, argued that the plea was not filed by an affected individual and the petitioner lacked locus standi.

During earlier hearings, the court had highlighted a primary issue: determining whether Rohingya in India are refugees or illegal entrants. Once this is clarified, other questions—such as rights, privileges, detention, or deportation—would follow.

The bench outlined the broader issues for consideration:

• Whether the Rohingya can be declared refugees and what protections they may be entitled to
• If deemed illegal entrants, whether the actions of the Centre and states in deporting them were justified
• Whether illegal entrants can be detained indefinitely or are entitled to bail under court supervision
• Whether Rohingya living in refugee camps have access to basic amenities, including water, sanitation, and education
• The legal obligations of the government to deport illegal entrants in accordance with Indian law

The Supreme Court separated the petitions into three categories: those directly related to the Rohingya, matters unrelated to them, and unrelated miscellaneous issues. Hearings for these groups will be conducted on consecutive Wednesdays.

The court also recalled a May 16 incident where petitioners claimed 43 Rohingya refugees, including women and children, were deported to Myanmar via the Andaman Sea. The bench criticized the claims as “fanciful ideas” and refused to stay further deportations.

On May 8, the court ruled that Rohingya found to be foreigners under Indian law must be deported, emphasizing that UNHCR-issued identity cards do not provide legal protection under Indian legislation.