'Has Indian Govt Declared Rohingyas As Refugees?Should Intruders Be Given Red Carpet Welcome?' Supreme Court Asks

Sharply reacting to a petition filed in relation to Rohingyas, the Supreme Court on Tuesday asked if there is any order issued by the Government of India declaring Rohingyas as 'refugees'.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a habeas corpus petition alleging custodial disappearance of Rohingya persons and seeking that any deportation be carried out only through due process.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that certain Rohingyas were picked up by the Delhi police in May and there was no information about their whereabouts.

At this juncture, CJI Kant asked : "Where is the order of the Government of India declaring them (Rohingyas) as refugees? Refugee is a well defined legal term and there is a prescribed authority by the Government to declare them. 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?" 

The counsel replied that the petitioner was not seeking any refugee status for the Rohingyas and was not opposing their deportation either. However, the deportation must be carried out as per the procedure established by the law, she submitted. "The case here is of custodial disappearance," she submitted, adding that the the Government itself has laid down a procedure on deportation which should be followed. "What we cannot do is to traffick them out, which is harmful to national security," the counsel submitted.

Saying that the matter will be taken up along with similar connected petitions, CJI said,  "If they don't have legal status to stay in India, and you are an intruder, we have a very sensitive border in the North India side. If an intruder comes, do we give them a red carpet welcome saying we would like to give you all facilities?"

"What is the problem in sending the back?" CJI asked. The counsel said they must be sent back, but as per the law.

CJI then observed : "First you enter, you cross the border illegally. You dug a tunnel or cross the fence and enter India illegally. Then you say, now that I have entered, your laws must apply to me and 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?"

The petitioner's counsel said that she was not seeking to "stretch the law" but was only seeking the application of the lawful procedure on deportation as it existed now. Reference was made to the order passed by the Supreme Court in 2020 in the Salimullah case that Rohingyas must be deported only as per the procedure.

The CJI observed that India is a country with a lot of poor people, and we should rather focus on them.  "We have also poor people in the Country. They are citizens. Are they not entitled to certain benefits and amenities? Why not concentrate on them? It is true, even if somebody has entered illegally, we should not subject them to third-degree methods...You are asking writ of habeas to bring them back..."

The counsel clarified that she was not seeking any repatriation.  The CJI said that the reliefs sought by the petitioner will give rise to "logistical issues." The petitioner added that the limited prayer was to order deportation only after passing deportation orders as per the Government's memorandum.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta submitted that the petition has been filed by a PIL petitioner and not any affected person. The petitioner's counsel replied that for PIL, the concept of locus is not there.

In May, a bench led by Justice Kant had questioned the claims in another petition that certain Rohingyas were picked up and forcefully thrown into the sea by the Indian authorities, by terming it a "beautifully crafted story". In a later hearing in that matter, the bench framed questions for consideration, such as whether Rohingyas are to be treated as refugees or illegal migrants.

While hearing another matter related to a Sri Lankan Tamil refugee, the Supreme Court had observed that India was not a "dharamshala" to accept refugees from all over the world.

Case : RITA MANCHANDA v. UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(Crl.) No. 505/2025