NEW DELHI: Forty-four former judges, including those who were in the Supreme Court and high courts, have issued a joint statement strongly condemning “a motivated campaign” against CJI Surya Kant following his remarks in the Dec 2 court proceedings related to Rohingyas.The statement said that while judicial proceedings may legitimately invite reasoned criticism, there were attempts, including an open letter issued on Dec 5 by another group of former judges, to “delegitimise the judiciary” by mischaracterising routine courtroom queries as an act of prejudice.The signatories included former SC judges Anil Dave and Hemant Gupta, Anil Deo Singh (former chief justice Rajasthan HC), BC Patel (former chief justice J&K and Delhi HCs), PB Bajanthri (former chief justice Patna HC) and Subhro Kama Mukherjee (former chief justice Karnataka HC).”The CJI 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 addressed,” the statement said.It said the ongoing campaign “conveniently omits” the CJI Kant-led bench’s categorical affirmation that no person on Indian soil – citizen or foreigner – can be subjected to torture, disappearance or inhuman treatment. “To suppress this, and then accuse the court of ‘dehumanisation’ is a serious distortion of what was actually said,” it said.The signatories highlighted Rohingyas have not been admitted to India under any statutory refugee-protection framework, and that India is neither a party to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention nor its 1967 Protocol. The statement said concerns over the illegal procurement of Aadhaar, ration cards and other documents by foreign nationals merit urgent scrutiny. It said an SC-monitored SIT may be necessary to inquire into how illegally entered migrants obtained these documents, and to identify networks facilitating such activities. The complex citizenship status of the Rohingyas in Myanmar further stressed the need for Indian courts “to proceed on clear legal categories, not slogans or political labels”, the statement said.It said that “against this backdrop, the judiciary’s intervention has been firmly within constitutional bounds”. The CJI Kant-led bench’s observations struck a balance between safeguarding national security and upholding human dignity, the statement said.”To convert such a constitutionally compliant approach into a charge of inhumanity is unfair to the CJI and damaging to the institution,” the former judges cautioned, adding that judicial independence would be at risk if every judicial question on nationality, migration, documentation or border security was met with accusations of hate or prejudice.
