Illegal Migrants Can't Be Blanketly Accepted As 'Refugees' : Centre Opposes Plea In Supreme Court To Protect Rohingyas

In a PIL seeking the release of detained Rohingya refugees in India, the Union made its stand clear by stating that Rohingyas are illegal immigrants and do not have the right to reside and settle, which is a fundamental right available only to the citizens. Given that India is a developing country with a large population, it was also stated that the welfare of its citizens must be prioritized. Thus, blanket acceptance of foreigners as refugees, particularly when the majority have entered the country illegally, cannot be accepted. “As a developing country with the largest population in the world and with limited resources, priority is required to be given to the country's own citizens. Therefore, there cannot be any blanket acceptance of foreigners as refugees especially where the vast majority of such foreigners have entered the country illegally.,” the affidavit stated Apart from this, the affidavit, signed by the Under-Secretary to the Ministry of Home Affairs, emphasized the Government's stance against illegal migration as a matter of policy. To support this, it has also underscored its legal obligation under the Foreigners' Act to "deport a person who is an illegal migrant." In this regard, reliance was also placed on the decision in the Sonowal case (Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665), where the Court, among others, had also held: “79. ... Bangladeshi nationals who have illegally crossed the border and have trespassed into Assam or are living in other parts of the country have no legal right of any kind to remain in India and they are liable to be deported.” The Union also mentioned that the Central Government has “unfettered discretion” in matters concerning the deportation of illegal migrants. The petition was filed by Priyali Sur, an independent multimedia journalist. The petitioner pleaded that despite the background of persecution and the discrimination that Rohingyas have fled, in India, they are officially labelled as “illegal immigrants” and face inhumane treatment and restrictions. Petitioner stated that Rohingyas had to feel from their home state to escape the genocidal attacks against them, which even the International Court of Justice has taken note of. These include arbitrary arrests and unlawful detentions, limits on freedom of movement outside of camps, limited access to education, limited or no access to basic health care and legal services, or any formal employment opportunities. As per the Union's stance, Rohingyas knowingly entered India illegally; thus, they are covered under the Foreigners Act. "Refugees" are not recognized under Indian law, there are only legal and illegal migrants. Based on this, it was argued seeking exemption for refugees under this Act, would create a separate legal category in itself and the Court cannot direct the parliament to do so. “The prayer of the Petitioner amounts to re-writing of the statute or directing the Parliament to frame a law in a particular manner which is wholly beyond the powers of judicial review. It is trite law that the Courts cannot direct Parliament to make a law or to legislate in a particular way.,” the affidavit said. It may also be noted that throughout its affidavit, Union has strongly argued against the Supreme Court's interference in this matter because it is a policy decision and falls within the ambit of the executive. Further, it also asserted that the deportation is taking place as per the established procedure. India Has A Constitutional Obligation To Ensure That The Demographic Structure Is Not Changed The affidavit also underscores the state's responsibility to prioritize its citizens' welfare, using the available resources, as outlined in the Directive Principles of the Constitution. In addition, it was also submitted that India has a constitutional duty to its citizens, including ensuring that the country's demographic and social structure is not changed and that important resources are not diverted to the citizens' disadvantage. “I respectfully submit that the scheme of the Constitution makes it very clear that India, as a sovereign nation, has the first and the foremost constitutional duty and obligation towards its citizens to ensure that demographic and social structure of the country is not changed to their detriment, the resulting socio-economic problems do not occur to the prejudice of its citizens and most importantly resources of the nation are utilized to fulfil the fundamental rights of its own citizens and are not diverted to the detriment of the citizens of India due to the influx of illegal migrants into the territory of India.”Furthermore, the affidavit also argues that providing facilities to illegal immigrants would adversely impact Indian citizens by depriving them of their rightful share in various sectors such as employment, subsidized housing, medical care, and education. This, in turn,...

Illegal Migrants Can't Be Blanketly Accepted As 'Refugees' : Centre Opposes Plea In Supreme Court To Protect Rohingyas

Gyanvi Khanna

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gyanvi Khanna

Illegal Migrants Can't Be Blanketly Accepted As 'Refugees' : Centre Opposes Plea In Supreme Court To Protect Rohingyas

Gyanvi Khanna

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gyanvi Khanna

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers