Ex-Judges and senior lawyers have issued an open letter to the Chief Justice of India, expressing deep concern over the Supreme Court’s remarks on Rohingya refugees. They warn the comments could “undermine constitutional values and human dignity”.
A collective of over thirty former judges, Senior Advocates, and members of the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) addressed an open letter to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, voicing “deep concern” regarding comments made by a Supreme Court Bench during a December 2 hearing.
This session involved a plea concerning the alleged custodial disappearance of Rohingya refugees. While discussing the case, the CJI questioned whether the Government of India has officially recognized Rohingyas as ‘refugees.’
This inquiry arose in response to a petition asserting that five Rohingyas had been detained by the Delhi police in May, with no information available on their current status.
The CJI remarked,
“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?”
In the letter dated December 5, 2025, the signatories urge the Chief Justice to publicly reaffirm the judiciary’s commitment to constitutional morality and the dignity of every individual within India’s borders.
They warn that negative rhetoric toward vulnerable groups poses a threat to constitutional guarantees and undermines public trust in the judiciary. This petition was filed by Dr. Rita Manchanda, a prominent scholar and human rights advocate active in addressing conflict and displacement in South Asia.
The signatories express concern over comments made by the Bench that questioned the legal status of Rohingya refugees, framing them as intruders, evoking images of individuals digging tunnels to enter India, and implying that such individuals may not be entitled to basic necessities like food, shelter, or education.
They state that the Bench also suggested these individuals should simply be spared “third-degree measures.”
According to the letter, such remarks degrade a vulnerable community and contradict constitutional protections. The Rohingya are recognized internationally as one of the “most persecuted minorities in the world,” being a stateless Muslim ethnic group from Myanmar enduring decades of violence and discrimination, which the International Court of Justice has described as genocide.
Many seek refuge in India, following in the footsteps of generations of prior refugees.
The letter highlights that Article 21 protections extend to “every person,” regardless of citizenship, referencing the Supreme Court’s ruling in NHRC v. State of Arunachal Pradesh (1996).
In that case, the Court established that the State has a duty to protect the life and liberty of all individuals within its territory. The signatories argue that reducing these constitutional guarantees to mere protection from custodial torture is both legally unjustifiable and morally concerning.
Moreover, the letter highlights India’s historical humanitarian treatment of refugees, including populations from Tibet, Sri Lanka, and those fleeing during the 1971 Bangladesh crisis.
The country’s Standard Operating Procedure for Foreign Nationals Claiming to be Refugees (2011, updated 2019) recognizes refugee status based on persecution in accordance with customary international law.
The signatories emphasize that refugees hold a “qualitatively different status” compared to undocumented migrants, and that the determination of refugee status is declaratory rather than discretionary. Any deportation or detention that lacks individual assessment infringes upon the principle of non-refoulement, which Indian courts have interpreted as part of Article 21.
The signatories caution that remarks from such a high judicial authority could have “cascading effects” on lower courts, tribunals, and administrative bodies.
They argue that equating refugees many of whom are women and children with illegal intruders erodes public confidence in the judiciary’s role as a “refuge for the vulnerable.”
The letter includes signatures from notable figures, such as former Delhi High Court Chief Justice AP Shah; former judges K. Chandru and Anjana Prakash; academics like Prof. Mohan Gopal; Senior Advocates Rajeev Dhavan, Colin Gonsalves, C. Uday Singh, and Mihir Desai; as well as advocates Kamini Jaiswal, Gautam Bhatia, and Shahrukh Alam. Members of the CJAR, including Prashant Bhushan and Anjali Bhardwaj, also signed the letter.
In closing, they call on the Chief Justice to reaffirm the judiciary’s obligation to uphold human dignity regardless of origin, asserting that the majesty of the Supreme Court is not only measured by its decisions but also by “the humanity with which those verdicts are delivered.”
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
