Latest news with #UNConventiononRefugees
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.
