Supreme Court has firmly declined to grant immediate relief to Rohingya Muslim migrants facing deportation from Delhi, asserting that their status as foreigners under Indian law necessitates their removal in accordance with the Foreigners Act. A three-judge bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and N Kotiswar Singh, addressed urgent appeals seeking to halt the reported deportations on May 8, ultimately scheduling a further hearing on the matter for July 31.
The appeals were brought forth by Senior Advocates Colin Gonsalves and Prashant Bhushan, who argued vehemently for the protection of the Rohingya community, citing the grave risk of genocide they face in Myanmar and their recognition as refugees by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Gonsalves expressed alarm at the court’s stance, labeling it a “complete overreach” and emphasising the judiciary’s past involvement in safeguarding the community. Bhushan further highlighted an affidavit filed by Manipur, stating Myanmar’s refusal to accept the return of Rohingya refugees, considering them stateless.
In response to the petitioners’ reliance on UNHCR cards, Justice Datta pointedly observed that the court did not dispute the fact that the migrants could not claim specific reliefs solely based on these documents. Bhushan also invoked the Genocide Convention, ratified by India, urging the court to consider its provisions. However, Justice Kant underscored the necessity of a conclusive determination on the migrants’ right to remain in India, stating that if no such right exists under Indian law, deportation as per the established procedure would follow. Justice Datta echoed this sentiment, explicitly stating that as foreigners covered by the Foreigners’ Act, the Rohingyas would be dealt with accordingly.
Representing the government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and advocate Kanu Agrawal countered the petitioners’ arguments by referencing previous Supreme Court decisions that rejected pleas to halt the deportation of Rohingya Muslims from Assam and Jammu & Kashmir. They reiterated the Central Government’s concerns regarding national security implications arising from the presence of these migrants in India.
Mehta firmly asserted that India does not recognize the Rohingya as refugees, emphasising that the nation is not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention and questioning the legitimacy of the UNHCR’s refugee designation in this context. He further argued that the right against deportation is intrinsically linked to the fundamental right of residence, which is exclusively granted to Indian citizens.
While acknowledging the applicability of the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution to the Rohingya migrants, the bench maintained their classification as foreigners. Consequently, the court reiterated that their situation would be governed by the provisions of the Foreigners Act, which outlines the procedures for the identification, detention, and deportation of individuals deemed to be illegally residing in the country.
The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the legal framework prioritising national law in matters of immigration and the treatment of foreign nationals.
