File photo
NEW DELHI: Forty-four former Supreme Court and high court judges have condemned what they described as a “motivated campaign” targeting Chief Justice of India Surya Kant over his comments in the Rohingya migrant case, saying critics had twisted a routine judicial query into accusations of bias, according to a statement.”Judicial proceedings can and should be subject to fair, reasoned criticism. What we are witnessing, however, is not principled disagreement but an attempt to delegitimize the Judiciary by mischaracterizing a routine courtroom proceedings as an act of prejudice. The Chief Justice is being attacked for asking the most basic legal question: who, in law, has granted the status that is being claimed before the Court? No adjudication on rights or entitlements can proceed unless this threshold is first addressed,” the statement said. “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,” the statement added.The judges said the judiciary’s recent handling of petitions related to Rohingya migrants reflected a careful balance between national security and the rejection of torture or inhuman treatment. “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. Against this backdrop, the judiciary’s intervention has been firmly within constitutional bounds and directed towards protecting the country’s integrity while upholding basic human dignity,” it said.Restating the legal and factual position, the signatories emphasized that the Rohingya in India have not arrived through any formal refugee-protection framework, as the country is not a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol.”Rohingya have not come to India as refugees under Indian law. They have not been admitted through any statutory refugee-protection framework. Their entry, in most cases, is irregular or illegal, and they cannot unilaterally convert that position into a legally recognised “refugee” status merely by assertion. India is neither a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention of 1951 nor its 1967 Protocol,” the statement said.The statement also raised concerns about the unlawful acquisition of Aadhaar, ration cards and other welfare-related documents by those who entered the country without authorization.The SC’s comments came against the backdrop of long-standing concerns over illegal immigration in India’s northeastern and eastern states, an issue the court has repeatedly flagged for nearly two decades. This came after the apex court warned that unchecked influx from Bangladesh had subjected Assam to “external aggression and internal disturbance,” placing heavy social, demographic and administrative strain on the region. Since then, questions around the legal status, documentation and security implications of cross-border migration have continued to shape both public debate and judicial scrutiny.