A group of 44 retired Supreme Court and High Court judges has condemned the “motivated” campaign targeting CJI Surya Kant over his remarks in the Rohingya case. They said routine legal questions were twisted into false allegations of prejudice, harming judicial independence.
New Delhi: A total of 44 signatories, including two retired Supreme Court judges, six former High Court Chief Justices, and 36 retired High Court judges, have strongly opposed what they describe as a motivated campaign against Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant.
This controversy began after his remarks during a hearing related to Rohingya migrants, followed by an open letter issued on 5 December 2025 criticizing him.
The issue arose on December 2 when the Supreme Court heard a petition regarding the alleged custodial disappearance of five Rohingya refugees.
During the hearing, CJI Surya Kant asked the petitioner a basic legal question: whether the Government of India had officially declared Rohingyas as “refugees.” The petitioner claimed that five Rohingya persons were picked up by Delhi Police in May and that their whereabouts were unknown.
Responding to this, the CJI 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 them here?”
According to the statement issued by the retired judges, judicial proceedings can always be subject to fair criticism. However, what is happening now, they say, is not genuine disagreement but an effort to attack and delegitimize the judiciary.
They believe that a routine courtroom question is being wrongly portrayed as prejudice.
The statement stresses that the CJI was simply asking the most fundamental legal question — who in law has given the status claimed before the Court? The retired judges point out that no court can decide rights or entitlements unless such a basic question is answered.
The group strongly condemned attempts to twist the Court’s remarks and turn legal disagreements into personal attacks on the CJI.
They also supported the idea of a Court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT) to examine allegations of illegal procurement of Indian identity and welfare documents by foreign nationals who have entered India unlawfully.
The judges further highlighted that critics were ignoring the Court’s clear stance that no human being on Indian soil can be subjected to torture, disappearance or inhuman treatment, whether the person is a citizen or a foreign national.
They emphasised that the Court repeatedly said every individual’s dignity must be respected. They added:
“Equally, the campaign conveniently omits the Bench’s clear affirmation that no human being on Indian soil, citizen or foreigner, can be subjected to torture, disappearance or inhuman treatment, and that every person’s dignity must be respected. To suppress this and then accuse the Court of ‘dehumanisation’ is a serious distortion of what was actually said”.
According to them, the CJI’s constitutionally correct approach has been wrongly painted as inhumane.
They warned that if every tough legal question on nationality, migration, documentation, or border security is met with accusations of bias or hate, it will threaten judicial independence in the long run.
They also clarified that the judiciary’s intervention in this matter is fully within constitutional limits and aims to protect both the security of the country and basic human dignity.
The statement explains that the Court’s observations balance the need for legality and national security with a firm rejection of torture or inhuman treatment.
Discussing the broader context, the retired judges noted that the Rohingya situation in Myanmar is extremely complicated.
They said the Rohingya have long been treated in Myanmar as illegal migrants from Bangladesh, with disputed or denied citizenship. Because of this background, they argue that Indian courts must rely on clear legal definitions and not emotional or political labels.
As they put it:
“The situation of the Rohingya in Myanmar itself is complex and cannot be brushed aside. There, too, they have long been treated as illegal migrants originating from Bangladesh, with contested or denied citizenship. This background only reinforces the need for Indian courts to proceed on clear legal categories, not slogans or political labels”.
This statement comes soon after more than 30 former judges, senior advocates, and members of the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) wrote an open letter expressing “deep concern” about the CJI’s remarks.
That earlier letter accused the Bench of comparing Rohingyas to “intruders,” referring to people “digging tunnels” to enter India, suggesting that such individuals may not be entitled to food, shelter, or education, and stating that they should only be spared “third-degree measures.”
Those signatories argued that such remarks “dehumanise” a persecuted community. They highlighted that the Rohingya are internationally recognised as one of the “most persecuted minorities in the world.”
Stateless and mostly Muslim, the Rohingya have suffered decades of discrimination and violence in Myanmar.
The International Court of Justice has even said that the community has faced genocide. Because of this, many Rohingyas flee to India seeking safety.
The latest statement by the 44 retired judges rejects the allegations of “dehumanisation” and defends the judiciary’s approach as both lawful and humane.
Click Here to Read More Reports On CJI Surya Kant
