Are Rohingya people in India refugees or illegal migrants? Supreme Court to decide
'The first major issue is whether they are refugees or illegal migrants. Rest is consequential,' a bench of justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and N Kotiswar Singh said.
'If they are refugees, they are entitled to certain protections under law. If not, they are illegal migrants and should be deported back to their country.'
The four questions framed by the court in the Rohingya batch of cases included, 'whether Rohingya entrants are entitled to be declared as refugees and if so, what protection emanates from the rights they are entitled to; whether Rohingyas are illegal entrants and if government of India and states are obligated to deport them in accordance with law.'
There were two consequential issues also that were framed by the court. These were: 'Even if Rohingya entrants are held to be illegal entrants, can they be detained indefinitely or they are entitled to be released on bail subject to conditions.' Lastly, it said, 'Whether Rohingya entrants who are not detained but living in refugee camps have been provided with basic amenities like drinking water, sanitation, education, etc.'
The court had taken up 22 cases involving the deportation of Rohingya who were either in detention camps or claimed refugee status. Among these, the bench sought to segregate cases related to Rohingya migrants as a single batch. The other cases involving other foreigners were directed to be grouped into a separate batch to be handled separately.
As the batch of cases got listed together, the bench expressed a practical difficulty in proceeding with the hearing, as some petitions spoke about the deportation of foreigners in general, while others specifically related to the condition of foreigners in detention camps.
Advocate Kanu Agarwal, appearing for the central government, submitted a list of cases pertaining to Rohingya people and urged the court to decide this batch of cases first. The non-Rohingya matters, he added, seek interpretation of the Foreigners Act.
The bench agreed, saying, 'The issues that arise in the other batch of cases will be determined separately on another date.'
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, who was appearing in multiple petitions, said that the genesis of these cases began with cases filed by Rohingya people in 2013. He said 15 out of the batch of 22 cases pertained to Rohingya refugees and the need to provide them facilities in their camps on par with refugees recognised under the UN Convention on Refugees. India is not a signatory to this convention and has not considered granting refugee status to them.
Senior advocates Ashwani Kumar and Colin Gonsalves, appearing in other matters, pointed out that the Rohingya people who hail from Myanmar have fled to India seeking asylum as they were being persecuted in their country. Gonsalves further referred to a case filed by the wife of a foreigner facing detention in Assam which concern Rohingya and non-Rohingya foreigners. In that case, Gonsalves showed orders passed by the court to expedite the deportation process despite the fact that Myanmar was unwilling to take these persons back.
In May this year, while hearing an application filed by Rohingya people in Delhi, the top court refused to adopt a piecemeal approach in deciding individual cases and called for all cases pending on the issue to be listed together.
The Centre has been opposing the maintainability of these petitions, citing the Supreme Court's order passed in April 2021. This order permits the Centre to take deportation measures as required under law and held that while the right to life and liberty is available to even non-citizens, the right not to be deported is ancillary but concomitant to the right to reside or settle in any part of India, which is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(e) only to citizens.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
30 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
What is Amadea? US auctioning seized $325M Russian superyacht equipped with 8 state rooms, helipad, gym and more
The United States is auctioning off the $325 million luxury superyacht Amadea, its first sale of a seized Russian superyacht since the launch of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Amadea: The 348-foot-long (106-meter-long) yacht, seized three years ago and currently docked in San Diego, was custom built by the German company Lürssen in 2017. (AP) The auction, which closes Sept. 10, comes as President Donald Trump seeks to increase pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the war. The U.S. has said it's working with allies to put pressure on Russian oligarchs, some of whom are close to Putin and have had their superyachts seized, to try to compel him to stop the war. The 348-foot-long (106-meter-long) yacht, seized three years ago and currently docked in San Diego, was custom built by the German company Lürssen in 2017. Designed by François Zuretti, the yacht features an interior with extensive marble work, eight state rooms, a beauty salon, a spa, a gym, a helipad, a swimming pool and an elevator. It accommodates 16 guests and 36 crew members. Determining the real ownership of the Amadea has been an issue of contention because of an opaque trail of trusts and shell companies. The superyacht is registered in the Cayman Islands and is owned by Millemarin Investments Ltd., also based in the Cayman Islands. The U.S. contends that Suleiman Kerimov, an economist and former Russian politician, who was sanctioned by the U.S. in 2018 for alleged money laundering, owns the yacht. Meanwhile, Eduard Khudainatov, a former chairman and chief executive of the state-controlled Russian oil and gas company Rosneft, who has not been sanctioned, claims to own it. U.S. prosecutors say Khudainatov is a straw owner of the yacht, intended to conceal the yacht's true owner, Kerimov. Litigation over the true ownership of the yacht is ongoing. A representative of Khudainatov said in an emailed statement Wednesday that the planned sale of the yacht is 'improper and premature' since Khudainatov is appealing a forfeiture ruling. 'We doubt it will attract any rational buyer at fair market price, because ownership can, and will, be challenged in courts outside the United States, exposing purchasers to years of costly, uncertain litigation,' said the representative, Adam Ford. The yacht has been virtually untouched since the National Maritime Services took custody of it in 2022. To submit a sealed bid on it, bidders must put in a 10 million euro deposit, the equivalent of roughly $11.6 million, to be considered. Ford said Khudainatov would go after any proceeds from the sale of the yacht, estimated to be worth $325 million. 'Should the government press ahead simply to staunch the mounting costs it is imposing on the American taxpayer, we will pursue the sale proceeds, and any shortfall from fair market value, once we prevail in court," Ford said. A U.S. aid package for Ukraine signed into law in May 2024 gave the U.S. the ability to seize Russian state assets located in the U.S. and use them for the benefit of Kyiv, which was attacked by Russia in February 2022.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Anbil Mahesh hopeful of SC relief after governor withholds assent to varsity bill
1 2 Trichy: School education minister Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi expressed his dissatisfaction after governor R N Ravi forwarded the Kalaignar University Bill to the President without offering any response. He said he hoped the Supreme Court would once again rule in favour of the state government. Addressing the media after a review meeting on Class 10 and 12 results in Mayiladuthurai, Anbil said, "He (the Governor) has forwarded it to the President without any responses. Every time, we are forced to take legal routes. Hopefully, the court delivers a favourable verdict." The bill, which proposes a university in Kumbakonam, has faced delays as the Governor chose to reserve it for the President's assent. Asked about former minister C V Shanmugam's petition in the Supreme Court seeking a ban on using chief minister M K Stalin 's name in state government schemes, dismissed by the court on Wednesday, Anbil said it was unfortunate that politics was being played over names instead of focusing on the benefits of the schemes. He pointed out that the government continues to retain names of former chief ministers M G Ramachandran and J Jayalalithaa in schemes such as the Puratchi Thalaivar MGR Nutritious Meal Programme and Amma Unavagam. "He (Shanmugam) is playing politics either for attention or out of fear," the minister said. Anbil also expressed hope that Mayiladuthurai district would improve its academic performance in the coming years.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Considerable interference by executive in appointment process of judges: Ex-SC judge
New Delhi, Former Supreme Court judge Justice Madan B Lokur on Wednesday said there had been a considerable interference by the executive in the appointment process of judges. Considerable interference by executive in appointment process of judges: Ex-SC judge He was speaking at an event organised by The Global Jurists on the topic 'Morality in Judiciary, A Paradigm or a Paradox'. "Now, about the appointment of judges. We have had a lot of problems in the recent past. There has been, I think, a considerable interference by the executive in the appointment process," he said. "The Memorandum of Procedure was finalised a long time back. But despite the MOP, which was, by the way, drafted in consultation with the Government of India, there have been all kinds of problems in its implementation," Justice Lokur added. In the appointment of judges, the former the former apex court judge said, "I believe, for reasons, that it has nothing to do with his merit. But it has something to do with a few cases that they decided," . He said that if the appointment process of judges was in the hands of the executive, "a kind of mischief" could be played. "You can appoint some person in the beginning, and a senior person can be kept pending for about six months or seven months so that he loses or he or she loses the seniority, and this is what is happening. Outstanding advocates who should have been appointed are not being appointed," Justice Lokur said. He said the process of making the appointment process less opaque needed to be deliberated upon. "Opaque not only from the side of the collegium of the high court or the collegium of the Supreme Court, but also from the side of the government," Justice Lokur said. He said that at present there were two impeachment motions pending against judges, one against Justice Yashwant Varma in the Parliament and the second against Justice Shekhar Yadav with the Rajya Sabha Chairperson. "I think for the first time in the history of the country, two impeachment motions are pending. I think we have to be very careful about the kind of persons that we appoint, and second, to keep a check on the judges while they are on the bench to make sure that these kinds of incidents do not happen," Justice Lokur said. Underlining the importance of delivering easily understandable judgments, he said, "I had to deal with a couple of judgments written by a particular judge. The English that he used, nobody could understand. The judges could not understand it. The lawyers could not understand it. So you know, this kind of quality is being demonstrated now." Regarding the transfer of judges, he said, "On the other hand, we have situations where judges are being transferred left and right without any reason. Delhi has had the experience in the recent past of Justice S Muralidhar everybody knows that this was during the riots in 2020, for passing an order which, for some reason, the government did not like." Justice Lokur, on post-retirement appointment of judges, said, "Now we have had a situation where a former Chief Justice of India has been apparently rewarded by a seat in the Rajya Sabha. We have another judge who has been rewarded with the governorship of one state. The third judge has also been awarded the governorship of another state." "We have had judges who have retired and joined politics immediately after. We had a sitting judge who resigned and joined politics, and actually got elected as a member of Parliament. We need to sort things out," he added. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
