New Delhi: Red Carpet for Shadows? SC Probes Rohingya Plea
India’s Supreme Court turned the spotlight on the nation’s porous borders Tuesday, grilling petitioners over protections for Rohingya migrants amid a habeas corpus bid for five “missing” individuals. Chief Justice Surya Kant‘s bench didn’t mince words, questioning if illegal entrants deserve a warm welcome at the judiciary’s door.
The hearing underscores a perennial tug-of-war between humanitarian calls and national security, especially with northern frontiers under strain.
Habeas Corpus Under Fire
The petition, filed on behalf of detained Rohingyas allegedly vanished from custody, sought their whereabouts and safeguards against hasty deportation. Lawyers invoked past rulings like the 2020 Salimullah case, insisting on due process for any removals.
Yet the bench zeroed in on the core: Are these arrivals refugees or unlawful infiltrators? CJI Kant pressed the advocate: “Has the government declared them refugees?” No such order exists, the exchange revealed, flipping the narrative on entitlements.
This scrutiny echoes earlier benches’ reminders that India isn’t bound by the UN Refugee Convention, treating such cases under the Foreigners Act.
Borders and Benefits Clash
CJI Kant laid bare the stakes with a vivid analogy: “Do you want us to roll out a red carpet for them?” He painted intruders slipping through tunnels, then claiming food, shelter, and education, all while “our poor children” wait in line for the same.
The court highlighted northern sensitivities, alluding to unrest without naming it, and wondered aloud if resources should prioritize citizens first. “We have poor people too, entitled to benefits,” Kant noted, urging focus on domestic needs.
Human rights voices counter that fleeing genocide warrants dignity under Article 21’s life protections, but the bench saw the plea as “fanciful” from an unrelated petitioner.
Deportation’s Due Dance
Solicitor General Tuhin Mehta jumped in, calling out the disconnect: a public interest litigant with no skin in the Rohingya game pushing writs for release. The bench agreed no relief flows without proof of foul play, nodding to third-degree methods as off-limits even for illegals.
Deportations, if ordered, must follow procedure, the court affirmed, but indefinite detention isn’t the answer either. Broader questions loom on camp conditions: water, sanitation, schooling for the undetained.
As the matter lingers, it spotlights India’s refugee policy void, balancing compassion with control in a crowded world.