Latest news with #UNConventiononRefugees
Hindustan Times
31-07-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Are Rohingya illegal migrants or refugees? Supreme Court to decide
The Supreme Court on Thursday began examining whether Rohingya entrants staying in the country are refugees or illegal migrants, as it heard a batch of petitions filed on their behalf challenging their deportation and seeking remedial steps to give them basic amenities during their stay in refugee camps. Advocate Kanu Agarwal appearing for Centre submitted a list of cases pertaining to Rohingyas and urged the court to decide this batch of cases first.(File/ANI) A bench headed by justice Surya Kant said, 'The first major issue is whether they are refugees or illegal migrants. The rest is consequential.' '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,' said the bench, also comprising justices Dipankar Datta and N Kotiswar Singh. The court took up a batch of 22 cases involving the deportation of foreigners who are either in detention camps or are claiming refugee status. The bench directed that the cases related to Rohingya migrants be segregated into a single batch. It directed that cases concerning other foreigners be clubbed into a separate batch to be taken up separately. The four questions the court framed 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: '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.' As the batch of cases got listed together, the bench expressed a practical difficulty in proceeding with the hearing of the matter as some petitions talked of deportation of foreigners in general, while others specifically related to the condition of foreigners in detention camps. Advocate Kanu Agarwal appearing for Centre submitted a list of cases pertaining to Rohingyas 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 said, 'The issues that arise in the other batch of cases will be determined separately on another date.' Advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing in multiple petitions said that the genesis of these cases began with cases filed by Rohingyas in 2013. He said 15 out of the batch of 22 cases pertained to Rohingya refugees and the need for providing them facilities in their camps at par with refugees recognised under the UN Convention on Refugees. India is not a signatory to this convention and has not considered grant of refugee status for them. Senior advocates Ashwani Kumar and Colin Gonsalves, appearing in other matters, pointed out that Rohingyas who hail from Myanmar have fled to India seeking asylum as they are 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 is unwilling to take these persons back. In May this year, while hearing an application filed by Delhi-based Rohingya migrants, the top court had 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 an order of the top court of April 2021 passed in a petition seeking protection for Rohingya refugees. This order permits the Centre to take deportation measures as required under law. This order 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.
Hindustan Times
31-07-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Are Rohingya people in India refugees or illegal migrants? Supreme Court to decide
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday said it will examine whether Rohingyas staying in the country were refugees or illegal migrants before going ahead with hearing a batch of petitions filed on their behalf challenging their deportation and seeking basic amenities during their stay in refugee camps. IA Rohingya woman holds her baby boy's hand at a refugee camp in Bangladesh. (AP FILE/REPRESENTATIVE IMAGE) '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.
The Hindu
31-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Supreme Court agrees to hear pleas on the status of Rohingyas as ‘refugees', their deportation
The Supreme Court decided on Thursday (July 31, 2025) to hear in detail the question of whether the Rohingyas can be treated as 'refugees', or if they are illegal immigrants. A three-judge Bench headed by Justice Surya Kant said it would devote three days to hear the case extensively, saying once this question was answered authoritatively, the consequences would flow automatically. The primary questions recorded by the Court, as raised by petitioners who are Rohingya people living in camps in the national capital, represented by advocate Prashant Bhushan and senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, include protections available to the Rohingyas in India if they were entitled to be declared as refugees. Or, on the other hand, if they were not refugees but illegal immigrants, whether the action of the government in deporting them was justified. Mr. Bhushan said the petitions, some of which dated back to 2013, had also highlighted the prolonged detention suffered by persons, including Rohingyas, after being declared as foreigners in States such as Assam. The Bench agreed to hear arguments on whether persons, including illegal entrants to India, could be detained indefinitely. The Court said it would also hear submissions on the living conditions and availability of basic amenities in Rohingya camps. 'The first issue is whether they are refugees or illegal immigrants. Rest is consequential,' Justice Kant remarked. In an earlier hearing in May, the apex court had observed that if the Rohingyas were found to be 'foreigners' under the Foreigners Act, they would be dealt with by the Centre in accordance with law. The petitioners have challenged the Centre's power to deport Rohingyas. They argued that the Rohingyas had been identified as 'refugees' by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR). They had constitutional protection against deportation to Myanmar. The petitioners claimed non-refoulement, saying the Rohingyas would be tortured and killed if they were deported to Myanmar, which had anyway declared them 'stateless'. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the Centre, had submitted that India was not a signatory to the UN Convention on Refugees. He had referred to an interim order passed by the Supreme Court that the government's power under Section 3 of the Foreigners Act to issue orders to 'prohibit, regulate, restrict entry or departure of foreigners' was absolute and unlimited, especially when national security concerns were in play. Mr. Mehta said Article 51(c), which emphasises respect for international law, could be pressed by the petitioners as long as they were in consonance with the domestic law.
Time of India
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Supreme Court irked by repeated PILs to stop Rohingya deportation
Supreme Court NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday was irked by successive attempts through PIL to stop alleged deportation of Rohingya Muslims within a fortnight and told senior advocate Colin Gonsalves that he can't be filing PIL after PIL on the same issue without any new fact to seek modification of SC's May 8 decision refusing relief. On May 8, a bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and N Kotiswar Singh had refused to grant interim stay on apprehended deportation of Rohingyas despite spirited arguments from Gonsalves and Prashant Bhushan. The bench had said Rohingyas, who are not Indian citizens, do not have a right to reside anywhere in the country. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta had said India is not a signatory to the UN Convention on Refugees and disputed validity of UNHCR granting refugee status to Rohingyas, who are from Myanmar and had fled to other countries because of serious threat to their lives from the military. On Friday, Gonsalves said on May 8 itself the Union govt had deported 28 Rohingyas, who were handcuffed and taken to Andaman Island, given life jackets and pushed towards Myanmar. After somehow reaching Myanmar, they took help of fishermen to make phone calls to their relatives in Delhi to inform them that they faced imminent threats to their lives. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Trade Bitcoin & Ethereum – No Wallet Needed! IC Markets Start Now Undo The bench of Justices Kant and Singh said these are bald averments and who is there to verify these facts are true to his knowledge. 'When the country is facing such a situation at present, you cannot come up with fanciful PILs like this. There is no material to support vague and sweeping allegations made in the petition. Unless the petitioner provides prima facie credible material, it is difficult to pass an interim order which is contrary to the one refused on May 8 by a 3-J bench.' Gonsalves cited a SC judgement on protection of Chakma refugees to seek similar relief for Rohingyas. He also cited a UN Report as well as an order of the International Court of Justice to claim that Rohingyas are not migrants but refugees whose protection of lives is mandated by the UN. The bench said, 'We do not want to comment on the UN Report today. We will give an answer to that on July 31, when this petition along with the pending one would be taken up for hearing.' Gonsalves said this would allow govt to deport more Rohingyas, whose number exceed 8,000 in different parts of the country and 800 of them are in Delhi.
The Hindu
09-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
If Rohingya refugees are ‘foreigners' under the Foreigners Act, they will be dealt with as per the law: SC
The Supreme Court on Thursday (May 8, 2025) observed that if Rohingya refugees are found to be 'foreigners' under the Foreigners Act, they will be dealt with by the Centre in accordance with law. A three-judge Bench headed by Justice Surya Kant was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the Centre's power to deport Rohingya refugees. Deportations reported The petitioners said that as persons identified as 'refugees' by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) they have constitutional protection against deportation to Myanmar. The petitioners, represented by senior advocate Colin Gonsalves and advocate Prashant Bhushan, claimed non-refoulement, saying they would be tortured and killed if they were deported to Myanmar, which have anyway declared them 'stateless'. The lawyers referred to media reports claiming that some of their clients, along with women and children, all of whom were UNHCR cardholders, were picked up and deported last night. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the Centre, submitted that India was not a signatory to the UN Convention on Refugees. He referred to an interim order passed by the Supreme Court that the government's power under Section 3 of the Foreigners Act to issue orders to 'prohibit, regulate, restrict entry or departure of foreigners' was absolute and unlimited, especially when national security concerns were in play. Mr. Mehta said Article 51(c) which emphasises on respect for international law could be pressed by the petitioners as long as they were in consonance with the domestic law. Also read | No child will be discriminated against: Supreme Court on plea for Rohingya access to public schools No right to settle: SC Justice Dipankar Datta agreed with Mr. Mehta's submissions that though right to life and due process (Article 21) and the right to equality (Article 14) of the Constitution were available to all, the fundamental right to reside or settle in any part of India under Article 19(1)(e) was only available to Indian citizens. 'You do not have a right to settle here,' Justice Datta addressed the petitioners. 'If they (refugees) have a right to stay here, it will be acknowledged. However, if they do not have a right, they will be deported as per the procedure prescribed in law,' Justice Kant remarked. Mr. Bhushan submitted that India recognised the Genocide Convention. The deportation of Rohingya refugees to Mynamar, which they had fled, was opening the door to one. Mr. Gonsalves said deportation was a violation of Article 21 rights of the Rohingya refugees. The senior lawyer referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court, which directed the Indian government to protect the Rohingya refugees despite the fact that India was not a signatory to the Refugee Convention. He argued that non-refoulement had attained the status of jus cogens (compelling law) in the International Customary Law. The court agreed to hear the case in detail in July.
