The Supreme Court on Tuesday sharply questioned the legal status of Rohingyas living in India and asked whether "intruders" should be given a "red carpet welcome" while the country's own citizens grapple with poverty.The Court questioned how far the law should be stretched to accommodate those who illegally immigrate to India, while hearing a petition concerning the alleged disappearance of five Rohingya immigrants who were earlier detained by the authorities.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted that India was a country that has sensitive border issues. The bench comprising made sharp observations while hearing a habeas corpus (bring the person) petition filed by rights activist Rita Manchanda alleging disappearance of few Rohingyas from the custody of authorities here. Now, the hearing in the case has been adjourned to December 16.
CJI Kant went on to question whether immigrants should be given access to the country's resources at the cost of the needs of Indian citizens."We have sensitive border in the north India side and we hope you are aware of what is happening inside the country...And so you want a red carpet for them (immigrants)...you enter through tunnel, etc. and then you are entitled to food, shelter, right to education for children etc. Do we want to stretch law like this? Are not our poor children entitled to benefits? Asking habeas corpus, etc (for the release of detained immigrants) is very fanciful," said CJI Kant.
The petitioner before the Court told the Court today that what was being challenged was the disappearance of the immigrants from custody and not their possible deportation out of India.The Bench, meanwhile, questioned if there was any basis to show that these persons are "refugees." The CJI added,"If somebody is an intruder...do we have an obligation to keep them inside? "But we cannot traffic them out," argued the petitioner's counsel.Solicitor General of India (SG) Tushar Mehta contended that the petition has been filed by someone who has no standing to do so.
"A PIL petitioner who has nothing to do with Rohingyas is asking these prayers," SG Mehta said.The Court eventually decided to hear the matter further on December 16.The bench took note of the broad issues that arose for its consideration in the pleas relating to Rohingyas."Whether the Rohingyas are entitled to be declared as refugees? If so, what protections, privileges or rights are they entitled to," the bench asked.
It said the second issue is if the Rohingyas are not refugees and are illegal entrants, whether the action of the Centre and states in deporting them was justified."Even if the Rohingyas have been held to be illegal entrants, can they be detained indefinitely or they are entitled to be released on bail, subject to such conditions as the court may deem fit to be imposed," it asked.The court said the other issue raised in the petitions is whether the Rohingyas, who have not been detained and are living in refugee camps, have been provided basic amenities like drinking water, sanitation and education.
"If the Rohingyas are illegal entrants, whether the government of India and the states are obligated to deport them in accordance with law," it noted.The bench segregated the pleas in three groups -- one relating to Rohingyas, another not pertaining to the issue of Rohingyas and one plea that it said pertains to a different matter altogether.
Follow us
