Supreme Court Questions Rohingya Refugee Status, Raises Concerns Over Illegal Immigration
The Supreme Court of India is scrutinizing the legal status of Rohingya individuals residing in the country, questioning whether they qualify as ‘refugees’ and emphasizing the implications of illegal border crossings.
New Delhi – In a hearing on Tuesday, the Supreme Court addressed a habeas corpus petition alleging the custodial disappearance of Rohingya individuals and demanding due process in any potential deportation. A bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi pressed for clarity on whether the Indian government has formally designated Rohingyas as ‘refugees’ under Indian law.
The case stems from reports that several Rohingya individuals were detained by Delhi police in May, with their current whereabouts unknown. Counsel for the petitioner argued that while they weren’t seeking refugee status for the Rohingyas or opposing deportation outright, any removal must adhere to established legal procedures. “The case here is of custodial disappearance,” the counsel stated, emphasizing the government’s existing deportation protocols should be followed. “What we cannot do is to traffick them out, which is harmful to national security.”
CJI Kant directly questioned the basis for claiming refugee status, asking, “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?”
The court’s line of questioning revealed a strong stance on the issue of illegal immigration. CJI Kant remarked, “If they don’t have legal status to stay in India, and you are an intruder, we have a very sensitive border in the North India side. If an intruder comes, do we give them a red carpet welcome saying we would like to give you all facilities?” He further questioned, “What is the problem in sending them back?”
The petitioner’s counsel clarified that their request centered on ensuring lawful deportation procedures are followed, referencing a 2020 Supreme Court order in the Salimullah case which mandated adherence to due process in Rohingya deportations. The CJI observed that India has its own citizens facing poverty and that resources should be focused on their needs. “We have also poor people in the Country. They are citizens. Are they not entitled to certain benefits and amenities? Why not concentrate on them?” he stated. He also cautioned against the use of “third-degree methods” even with those who have entered the country illegally.
The Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, noted that the petition was filed by a public interest litigant (PIL) rather than an affected individual. The petitioner’s counsel countered that the concept of locus standi is not applicable in PIL cases.
This case follows a previous hearing in May where the same bench questioned claims of Indian authorities forcefully deporting Rohingyas to sea, dismissing the allegations as a “beautifully crafted story.” In that earlier hearing, the court framed questions regarding whether Rohingyas should be classified as refugees or illegal migrants. The court also referenced a separate case involving Sri Lankan Tamil refugees, where it observed that India “is not a dharamshala to accept refugees from all over the world.”
The current matter, RITA MANCHANDA v. UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(Crl.) No. 505/2025, will be considered alongside related petitions. The Supreme Court’s scrutiny underscores the complex legal and humanitarian challenges surrounding the Rohingya population in India and the broader issue of managing illegal immigration.
