SC calls plea on Rohingya abandonment in intl waters ‘beautifully crafted story’
The court declined to pass any interim orders to halt Rohingya deportations, saying the petition lacked material evidence
The Supreme Court on Friday expressed doubts over a petition alleging that 43 Rohingya refugees, including minors, elderly persons, and some with serious health conditions, were abandoned in international waters during forcible deportation to Myanmar.
A bench of justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh declined to pass any interim orders to halt more deportations, saying the petition lacked material evidence to support its “vague, evasive and sweeping statements.” The court said it would not override a Justice Kant-led three-judge bench’s May 8 decision denying similar relief in other matters concerning Rohingya refugees.
Justice Kant questioned why similar allegations were being made now and demanded that the petitioners provide evidence to establish “fanciful” allegations. “Every day you come with one new story. Very beautifully crafted story. Please show us the material on record. When the country is going through such a difficult time, you bring such fanciful petitions,” the bench said, questioning the credibility of the petitioner’s claims.
Two Rohingya refugees in Delhi filed the petition alleging members of their community were detained under the pretext of biometric data collection and deported via Port Blair after being blindfolded and restrained aboard naval ships.
{{/usCountry}}Two Rohingya refugees in Delhi filed the petition alleging members of their community were detained under the pretext of biometric data collection and deported via Port Blair after being blindfolded and restrained aboard naval ships.
{{/usCountry}}Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for the petitioners, urged the court to intervene. He told the court that the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Office had taken cognisance of the allegations and initiated an inquiry. “Time is against us. Please hear this next week. The UN report says they [refugees] were picked up and sent,” he said.
{{/usCountry}}Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for the petitioners, urged the court to intervene. He told the court that the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Office had taken cognisance of the allegations and initiated an inquiry. “Time is against us. Please hear this next week. The UN report says they [refugees] were picked up and sent,” he said.
{{/usCountry}}The bench said it will not comment on the UN report when sitting in a three-judge composition. Gonsalves offered to place relevant reports and a tape recording allegedly from “Myanmar shores” on record.
{{/usCountry}}The bench said it will not comment on the UN report when sitting in a three-judge composition. Gonsalves offered to place relevant reports and a tape recording allegedly from “Myanmar shores” on record.
{{/usCountry}}The court said nothing barred a lawyer from placing such material on record, but added one must keep in mind that “foreign reports can not override Indian sovereignty.”
The court distinguished the matter from the 1996 case of National Human Rights Commission of India vs Arunachal Pradesh, in which the Supreme Court addressed the plight of Chakma and Hajong tribals and protected them from forcible evictions. It cited the 1996 case and said the Union government had said on record it was considering granting the tribals Indian citizenship. The court said that in the present case, there existed “a serious dispute” on whether Rohingyas were refugees or not. It tagged the present petition with other pending cases on Rohingya deportation and posted it for hearing on July 31.
Over 700,000 Rohingya Muslims were forced to flee Myanmar, mostly to Bangladesh, in 2017 to escape a military campaign, which the UN characterised as a genocide.
