"Vague, Evasive & Sweeping Claims": SC Declines Urgent Relief On Alleged Rohingya Deportation

The Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh observed that the petition lacked credible and verifiable evidence and refused to grant any interim relief.

The Court instead directed that the matter be heard along with a batch of related cases already pending before a three-judge Bench on July 31.

“There is absolutely no material to support the sweeping, evasive, and vague allegations made. Unless such claims are backed by prima facie evidence, we cannot interfere with an order passed by a larger Bench,” the Court said.

Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for the petitioners alleged that the group of Rohingyas had been taken from the Andaman Islands and abandoned in international waters, effectively placing them in a war zone.

The petitioners sought a stay on any further deportations and requested urgent listing of the matter in view of what they claimed was an ongoing humanitarian crisis.

Gonsalves informed the Court that 38 individuals had already been deported and that the petitioner had received a phone call from a relative who was among those expelled. He submitted that the refugees were “taken to the Andaman and then dropped into the sea,” asserting that they were now trapped in a conflict-ridden region of Myanmar.

Justice Surya Kant, however, was deeply skeptical of the claims and repeatedly pressed Gonsalves to produce verifiable material to substantiate the allegations.

“Every day, a new story is brought before us. What is the basis for this one? Just because we adjourn a matter does not mean full liberty can be taken,” Justice Kant remarked. “This appears to be a beautifully crafted narrative, but where is the evidence?”, he said.

The Bench further questioned how the petitioner claimed to know the details of the alleged deportation and asked whether anyone had physically witnessed the incident or whether the petitioner had access to satellite footage.

“Unless someone is physically present and watching, who on earth can verify this?” Justice Kant asked.

Gonsalves replied that the petitioner was in India and had received a phone call from his deported brother. He added that a tape recording of the call from the Myanmar coast was available and that the government could verify its authenticity.

But Justice Kant was unmoved: “There is a well-established law of evidence in this country. Please tell us the source of this information and who claims personal knowledge.”

Gonsalves, undeterred, sought a stay on further deportation and pressed the urgency of the matter. He also cited the International Court of Justice (ICJ) reports on the persecution of Rohingyas, saying they were victims of genocide fleeing mass atrocities.

He further invoked the Chakma citizenship case, asserting that as per international law, refugees cannot be forcibly returned to conditions that threaten their life or liberty.

Justice Kant responded that even the refugee status of the deported individuals was under dispute. “When the Union makes a commitment before us regarding a group of individuals, the matter is argued at length. There’s still a serious dispute whether these are refugees or not,” he said.

The Bench accused the petitioner of indulging in forum shopping, asking what new, alarming material had emerged in the past few days to justify jumping the queue for an urgent hearing. “In some other country, such issues have come up as well. No one is going to deny basic human rights. But if you want us to intervene, bring some material worth considering. You can’t come to Court every day with information from social media,” Justice Kant added.

Gonsalves emphasized that over 8,000 Rohingyas in India hold valid UNHCR refugee cards, and asked rhetorically whether the 600 currently residing in Delhi would also be forcibly returned to a war zone. “Time is of the essence,” he pleaded. “The UN report states they were picked up and deported. Please hear the matter before lives are lost," Gonsalves added.

Despite these arguments, the Court remained firm, stating that the batch of cases involving Rohingya refugees was already pending before a three-judge Bench, which had heard the matter on May 8 and scheduled the next hearing for July 31.

“We will consider the UN report when the three-judge Bench takes up the matter,” Justice Kant assured.

Accordingly, the Court ordered, "The issue has been assigned to a three-judge Bench. Let this petition be heard along with the batch of connected matters on July 31. Request for urgent listing is declined. However, we will hear the matter.”

Previously

In a related news, the Supreme Court on May 8, while hearing batch of petitions seeking directions to detect and deport alleged Rohingya and Bangladeshi infiltrators, even as petitioners raised the alarm over the recent deportation of UNHCR-cardholding Rohingya refugees, was informed by Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves that “some individuals were picked up by the police and deported just last night. This is deeply alarming, an outright shock. It amounts to a complete overreach of the Court’s directions.”

In 2022, the then Chief Justice of India Justice (CJI) NV Ramana of Supreme Court while hearing a mentioning of Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay seeking listing of his plea which had sought detection and deportation of Rohingya-Bangladeshi infiltrators, remarked, “These are definitely important issues, however what is the purpose of elected representatives?”

The case was mentioned by Upadhyay in the morning, he had added that, “5 crore illegal immigrants are using our resources.”

The then, CJI had responded to it by stating that the courts have to hear his case everyday. The then, CJI had said, “These are all political issues, make representation before the government.” Upadhyay had submitted that notice has been issued to all the States in this matter and the States have come forward and filed their counter affidavits. The CJI had then told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was present in the Court, that the Bench would list the matter if the centre was ready.

Pertinently, on March 27, 2021, the Supreme Court after issuing notice to the Union of India had tagged the PIL filed by Upadhyay.

Case Title: Mohammad Ismail v. Union of India