NEW DELHI — Retired High Court judges, senior advocates and the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms have penned an open letter to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant voicing exception to “unconscionable remarks” made from his Bench about Rohingyas while hearing a petition raising concern about the custodial disappearance of a group of them in India.
It may be recalled that on December 2, sharply reacting to a petition filed by activist Rita Manchanda in relation to Rohingyas, a bench led by CJI Kant asked if there was any order issued by the Government of India declaring Rohingyas as ‘refugees’.
Chief Justice Kant was also reported in the media as orally questioning the refugee status of Rohingyas and whether intruders ought to be welcomed with a red carpet.
Live Law quoted the CJI as saying, “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?”
Taking objection to these remarks, particularly the equation of Rohingya refugees to “illegal intruders digging tunnels” to enter India, the former judges have written to CJI Kant, stating.
“The remarks from the bench are contrary to core constitutional values. They have had the effect of dehumanising Rohingya refugees whose equal humanity and equal human rights are protected by the Constitution, our laws and by international law.”
Objection has been taken particularly to the bench’s reported statements questioning the legal status of the Rohingya as refugees, equating them with intruders illegally entering India, the references to persons who dig tunnels to enter illegally, the questioning whether such entrants are entitled to food, shelter and education, the invocation of domestic poverty as a reason to deny basic constitutionally guaranteed entitlements to refugees and the suggestion that they be spared third degree measures, in their treatment in India.
The former judges, advocates and CJAR highlight the plight of Rohingyas and point out that the United Nations has described Rohingya as “the most persecuted minority in the world”.
The letter recalled India’s track record of hosting refugees of different profiles and extending humanitarian protection while balancing national security interests and the concerns of its citizens.
The signatories state that India has a longstanding tradition of recognising refugees as a category distinct from migrants. The country has extended humanitarian protection to Tibetans, Sri Lankan Tamils and, historically, millions fleeing persecution in 1970–71 from East Pakistan. The Citizenship Amendment Act similarly grants exemptions to certain persecuted religious minorities, though its exclusionary design faces constitutional challenges pending before the Supreme Court.
The letter also underscored the role of the Supreme Court as the custodian and final arbiter of the rights of the poor, the dispossessed and the marginalised.
“Your words carry weight not simply in the courtroom but in the conscience of the nation and have a cascading effect on the High Courts, the lower judiciary and other government authorities. A remark that equates vulnerable persons (who in the case of the Rohingya include thousands of women and children) seeking shelter with ‘intruders’ who ‘dig tunnels’, further dehumanises those fleeing genocidal persecution and weakens the moral authority of the judiciary,” the letter emphasised.
The Rohingya, as indeed any person residing in India, were entitled to the protections of Article 21 and not just protections from “third degree measures”. This fundamental right was available to an individual who was a citizen or any other person residing in India, the letter said.
The signatories to the letter are:
Justice AP Shah, former Chief Justice, Delhi High Court, Justice K. Chandru, Former Judge, Madras High Court, Justice Anjana Prakash, Former judge, Patna High Court, Prof. Mohan Gopal, Former Director, National Judicial Academy Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court, Mr. Chander Uday Singh, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court, Mr. Colin Gonzalves, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Advocate, Supreme Court, Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate, Bombay High Court, Mr. Gopal Shankar Narayan, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court, Mr. Gautam Bhatia, Advocate, High Court & Supreme Court, Ms. Shahrukh Alam, Advocate, High Court & Supreme Court.
Working Group, CJAR
Prashant Bhushan – Advocate, Supreme Court, Nikhil Dey – RTI Activist &Co Founder Majdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan, Alok Prasanna Kumar – Advocate and Co-Founder, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, Venkatesh Sundaram – Lok Raj Sanghatan, Indu Prakash Singh – Convenor, National Forum for Housing Rights Anjali Bhardwaj – Transparency Activist, Founder Satark Nagrik Sangathan and co-convenor, National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI) Amrita Johri – Transparency Activist and working committee member, NCPRI Annie Raja – National Federation of Indian Women Beena Pallical- Beena- National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights Cheryl D’souza – Advocate, Supreme Court Indira Unninayar – Advocate, High Court and Supreme Court Siddhartha Sharma – Advocate Devvrat – Advocate, High Court and Supreme Court Vijayan MJ – Policy Analyst, Independent Researcher and Writer Vipul Mudgal – Director, Common Cause Koninika Ray – National Federation of India Women Meera Sanghamitra – Convenor, National Alliance of People’s Movements Apar Gupta – Advocate & Co-Founder & Founder Director, Internet Freedom Foundation Anurag Tiwary – Advocate, High Court and Supreme Court
