New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday delivered a sharp rebuke to a petition seeking the tracking of five missing Rohingya, with Chief Justice of India Surya Kant questioning whether the country is expected to “roll out a red carpet” for individuals who have entered illegally. He also raised whether the State has any obligation to retain a person who has crossed the border unlawfully.
The plea had highlighted the disappearance of five Rohingya from custody and argued that any deportation must follow due legal process.
Taking a firm view, the Chief Justice said, “First, you enter, you cross the border illegally. You dig a tunnel or cross the fence… Then you say, Now that I have entered, your laws must apply to me. You say, I am entitled to food, I am entitled to shelter, my children are entitled to education. Do we want to stretch the law like this?”
He added, “We too have poor people in the country. They are citizens. Are they not entitled to certain benefits and amenities? Why not concentrate on them?” He further described the use of habeas corpus in such circumstances as “very fanciful”, noting that the remedy applies to ensuring the legality of a person’s detention, not to broader immigration concerns.
No Scope For ‘Third-Degree Methods’
Despite his criticism of the petition, the Chief Justice emphasised that no individual, even one who has entered the country illegally, should ever be subjected to “third-degree methods”.
No Refugee Status For Rohingya, Says Court
The Chief Justice underscored that the government has not granted refugee status to the Rohingya. “If there is no legal status of a refugee, and somebody is an intruder and he enters illegally, do we have an obligation to keep that fellow here? We have a very sensitive border in north India. If an intruder comes, do we give them a red carpet welcome?” he asked.
Matter Adjourned To December 16
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the petition should not be considered unless the affected individuals themselves approach the court. The Supreme Court adjourned the case to 16 December, when it will be heard along with similar pending matters.
