Today, On 2nd December, The Supreme Court questioned a plea alleging the custodial disappearance of five Rohingyas, asking the petitioner to show the notification that recognises them as refugees. The Bench led by CJI Surya Kant flagged maintainability concerns and security issues.
The Supreme Court on Monday heard a petition that alleged the custodial disappearance of five Rohingya individuals, and the Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant raised several questions about the maintainability of the plea.
During the hearing, the CJI first pointed out that the petitioners had used the term ‘refugee’ without establishing any legal basis.
The CJI said,
“Refugee is a clearly defined term. Show us the notification that recognises them as refugees.”
In response, the counsel appearing for the petitioners said they were not questioning the government’s decision to deport the individuals.
The lawyer said,
“We are not challenging the deportation. Our concern is the custodial disappearance.”
The CJI then asked whether the country had any obligation towards persons who entered India unlawfully.
He remarked,
“If someone enters the country as an intruder, are we under any obligation to keep them within our borders?”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, argued that the PIL lacked credibility as the petitioner had no personal connection with the individuals involved.
He submitted,
“The PIL petitioner has no connection to the Rohingyas, yet they are seeking these reliefs. The affected parties themselves have been approaching the Court.”
When the petitioner’s counsel argued that the individuals could not simply be transported out of the country without due process, he said,
“But we cannot traffic them out.”
The CJI responded with strong observations about national security and the nature of the claims being made.
Highlighting concerns over border security, he said,
“We have a sensitive northern border, and you are aware of what is happening in the country. You want a red carpet for them people entering through tunnels and then claim rights to food, shelter, education, and so on? Should the law be stretched that far? Aren’t our own poor children entitled to these protections? Seeking habeas corpus in such circumstances is quite fanciful.”
After hearing all sides, the Court scheduled the matter for further hearing on December 16.
Read Live Coverage