Supreme Court to Examine Core Issue: Rohingya Refugees or Illegal Immigrants?

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to delve into the core question of whether Rohingya people living in India should be legally classified as refugees or as illegal immigrants. A three-judge Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, acknowledged that an authoritative ruling on this issue is necessary to determine their legal status and rights.

Senior advocate Ashwini Kumar, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the court must decide whether the Rohingya constitute a distinct class under domestic and international law, given their documented persecution in Myanmar. Responding to this, Chief Justice Kant observed, “Prima facie, it appears that as a refugee, someone would have a legal status.”

However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, argued that India is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol. He insisted that the legal questions in the case have already been framed and that the hearing must be confined to them. These questions include whether the Rohingya are not refugees but illegal entrants, whether the Union or State governments are justified in deporting them, and whether they can be detained indefinitely even if they are found to be illegal entrants.

The case stems from a series of petitions filed by Rohingya individuals living in camps in Delhi, represented by advocate Prashant Bhushan and senior advocate Colin Gonsalves. Bhushan pointed out that the petitions date back to 2013 and highlighted the prolonged detention of people declared foreigners in States like Assam, including Rohingya individuals.

In an earlier hearing in May, the Supreme Court observed that if Rohingya persons are 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 them, arguing that the Rohingya are recognised as refugees by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and are therefore protected against forced return to Myanmar.

The petitioners have invoked the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits returning people to a country where they face serious threats to life or freedom. They argue that the Rohingya would face torture and death if deported to Myanmar, a country that has declared them stateless.

The Supreme Court's decision to examine this core issue is significant, as it will determine the legal framework governing the treatment of Rohingya people in India. The case also raises broader questions about the rights of asylum seekers in a country that has not ratified the international refugee convention, and about the balance between national sovereignty and humanitarian obligations.

The bench has not yet scheduled the next hearing, but the court's willingness to address the foundational question of refugee status marks a crucial step in a legal battle that has been ongoing for over a decade.