Today, On 16th May, The Supreme Court asked for concrete proof regarding claims that Rohingya refugees were thrown into the sea, stressing that petitions cannot be based on social media content alone. “You cannot keep collecting info from social media.”
New Delhi: The Supreme Court expressed doubts about whether it should consider claims that the Indian government has been forcibly deporting Rohingya refugees by abandoning them in international waters.
A Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N.K. Singh was reviewing a petition submitted by two Rohingya refugees who alleged this and requested the court’s intervention.
However, the court seemed reluctant to act without substantial evidence.
Justice Kant questioned,
“Every time, you have a new story. Now (where) is this beautifully crafted story coming from? …Who was clicking the videos and photos? How did he come back? What is the material on record?”
Also Read: Supreme Court Seeks Rohingya Refugee Residence Details in Delhi
Likely referring to the Pahalgam terror attack that occurred on April 22 and its consequences, the judge remarked,
“When the country is going through such a tough time, you bring up these fanciful petitions.”
The Supreme Court stated,
“Every time, you have a new story… Country is going through such a tough time, you bring up these fanciful petitions,”
In response, Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves argued that the petitioners had received phone calls detailing the alleged incidents and noted that there were credible news reports supporting their claims.
Gonsalves urged the Court to initiate an investigation,
“They were taken to the Andamans and then were put in the sea with life jackets… there was a call made from Myanmar… He (the petitioner) is in Delhi and he has been told on the phone… we have a translation of the phone call also. Please see the foreign media reports… it says credible reports,”
However, the Court remained unconvinced.
It commented,
“Show us who has verified these calls and who has personal knowledge of all this. Unless someone is standing and watching it, how can you vouch for this? Unless the petitioner has seen this in real time… Place these reports on record… We will see… all these people who are sitting outside cannot challenge our sovereignty and our authority,”
Gonsalves emphasized the need for the Court to recognize the necessity of protecting Rohingya refugees.
He stated,
“Please see what the International Court of Justice has said about the Rohingyas and why Rohingyas cannot be returned… Migrants can be sent back, but not Rohingyas,”
The Court reiterated that it could only intervene if credible evidence supported the claims made by the petitioners.
Justice Kant remarked,
“This issue arose in some other country… We don’t know what material was before them. Of course, if there is material, we can also order on human rights issues… We are saying, get material on record. Every day you cannot keep collecting from social media and file petitions,”
Gonsalves insisted,
“I am saying, can you take them and put in a warzone? We are in direct touch with Rohingyas,”
Justice Kant then noted that a similar issue had previously been addressed by a three-judge Bench, including himself and Justice Dipankar Datta, while hearing other matters related to Rohingya refugees.
Also Read: Supreme Court to Hear Plea in March Seeking Release of Detained Rohingya Refugees
He questioned why these allegations were being raised again and suggested it might be a case of forum shopping, given that Justice Datta was not part of the current Bench.
Justice Kant stated,
“We were sitting in three-judge bench composition… stay was declined on the same matter and now you are before us here on the basis of the same material,”
The Court ultimately decided to refer the matter back to the previous three-judge Bench. In its order, it expressed concerns that the allegations presented by the petitioners were vague.
The Court stated,
“There is no material in support of the vague, evasive and sweeping statements made in the writ petition. Unless the allegations are supported with some prima facie material, it is difficult for us to sit over the interim order passed by a larger bench. Let these applications be also listed before three judges bench and be taken up on July 31. Let the paper book be submitted to the Attorney General,”
As the hearing concluded, Gonsalves remarked,
“Please glance at the UN report… it says that they (Rohingyas) were picked up.”
In response, Justice Kant said,
“We will give a report to the UN when the time is correct.”
Gonsalves added, “We only seek protection.”
Justice Kant replied, “That we cannot. Direction sought is declined.”
The Court is scheduled to hear the matter again on May 31.
Case Title: Mohammad Ismail and anr v. Union Of India
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
