Supreme Court To Hear In March Plea Relating To Rohingya Refugees

The Supreme Court (on February 29) said that it will hear the Writ Petition, seeking the release of illegally detained Rohingya refugees in India, in March. The petition filed by Priyali Sur, an independent multimedia journalist, pleaded that despite the background of persecution and the discrimination that Rohingyas have fled, in India, they are officially labeled as “illegal immigrants” and face inhumane treatment and restrictions. 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. Last year, in October, the Division Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra issued notice to the Union government in this petition. On February 29, Advocate Prashant Bhushan mentioned the matter before the Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, requesting the listing of this matter. Underscoring the urgency of the matter, he said, “Women and children are all languishing in detention in great hardship." Following this, he also submitted that Union has not filed its reply yet even though the Court had granted them four weeks while issuing notice. “Reply has not been filed. Your lordship had given them four weeks' time to the Union in Nov." In view of this, the Court listed the matter in March without indicating any specific date. It may be recalled that the International Court of Justice in January 2020, through a landmark judgment, recognized that the Rohingyas had faced 'irreparable damage' and genocide at the hands of the Myanmar government, ordering officials to take emergency measures to protect the Rohingya Muslims. Facing genocide, Rohingya refugees have fled in waves since the violence began to neighboring countries, including India. Against this backdrop, it has been argued in the petition that the Rohingya in India face “growing anti-Muslim and anti-refugee xenophobia” and live in constant fear of detention and even deportation back to the genocidal regime from which they fled, the petition stated. The petition elaborated: “Hundreds of Rohingya refugees including pregnant women and minors, have been detained unlawfully and indefinitely in jails and detention centres across India, despite the UNHCR recognising their status as refugees. They endure severe violations and dehumanising conditions within these detention facilities. They are detained without assigning any reason or often under the Foreigners Act and with no access to legal aid.” It is also worth mentioning that the petitioner has further compiled several cases of Rohingya refugees being detained, sentenced under the Foreigners Act, and in indefinite detention across jails and detention centers in India despite serving out their sentence, in many cases for even over 5-8 years. In respect of international obligations, it has been stressed that India has an obligation to prevent genocide. Further, it also took into consideration that in 1948 the United Nations approved the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide which established 'genocide' as an international crime, which signatory nations “undertake to prevent and punish”. Notably, India, along with Panama and Canada, was the force behind the adoption of the Genocide Convention on December 9, 1948, adopting of the Convention. Besides this, India has signed international agreements on human rights (in 1948) and against torture (in 1997) and passed domestic laws on the right to life that apply to refugees. Imperatively, the petitioner argued that the discrimination faced by the Rohingya refugees and their continued arbitrary and indefinite detention is not only illegal and unconstitutional but also in violation of the government's own standard operating procedure for the treatment of refugees in India. In view of this, the petitioner has argued that the discrimination faced by the Rohingya refugees and their continued arbitrary and indefinite detention is not only illegal and unconstitutional.Case Title: PRIYALI SUR v. UNION OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 1060/2023

Supreme Court To Hear In March Plea Relating To Rohingya Refugees

Gyanvi Khanna

Tags