New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday declined to stay the deportation of Rohingya refugees, refusing interim relief in a public interest petition that alleged the Indian government forcibly deported 43 Rohingyas including women, children, and critically ill individuals by abandoning them in international waters near Myanmar.
A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh expressed strong disbelief in the allegations, calling them vague and unsupported by any credible evidence. “Very beautifully crafted story! What is the material to substantiate your allegations?” Justice Kant remarked during the hearing.
Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for the two Rohingya refugees residing in Delhi, contended that the deportees were deceived under the pretext of biometric verification, transported to Port Blair, blindfolded and bound, and then allegedly cast off into the sea, eventually washing ashore in Myanmar.
The plea seeks a declaration that the act was unconstitutional and demands the government bring back the deportees, compensate them with Rs 50 lakh each, and cease further deportations.
However, the bench refused to be moved, noting that a three-judge bench headed by Justice Kant had already declined similar relief on May 8.
“Unless the allegations are supported with some prima facie material, it is difficult for us to sit over an order passed by a larger bench,” the bench observed, adding that there was “absolutely no material” to support the sweeping claims.
Justice Kant, expressing frustration, said, “Every day you come out with one new story… what is the basis of this? Very beautifully crafted story!”
Gonsalves argued, “38 persons deported. Taken to Andaman, dropped in the sea… they are now in a war zone.”
Justice Kant asked, “Who is the person watching them? Who video-recorded this? Where is the evidence?”
When Gonsalves cited a telephonic recording allegedly from Myanmar as proof, Justice Kant asked who verified its authenticity.
Gonsalves responded that it came from a deportee’s relative, but the Court remained unconvinced:
Justice Kant said, “There is a well-known law of evidence in this country… Unless this gentleman had satellite recording…”
He further admonished the petitioners for “forum shopping” and relying on unverified information, “Before rushing to Court, collect material. We won’t let those sitting outside dictate our sovereignty.”
Gonsalves attempted to bolster his plea by referring to a UN Human Rights report and the International Court of Justice’s ruling that Rohingyas face genocide in Myanmar.
He also cited the NHRC v. State of Arunachal Pradesh case, which upheld the right to life for non-citizens. But the bench remained unmoved.
Justice Kant said, “There is a serious dispute as to whether Rohingyas are refugees or not. If they don’t have the right to stay here, deportation will follow the law.”
He further stated, “Place these reports on record… All these people who are sitting outside cannot challenge our sovereignty.”
The PIL alleged that deported individuals, some as young as 15 and others as old as 66, were held in Delhi police stations before being transferred to the Inderlok Detention Centre, flown to Port Blair, and then forced onto naval ships.
According to the petition, families were split apart, minors separated from mothers, and the detainees asked if they wished to be sent to Myanmar or Indonesia.
Authorities then allegedly abandoned them at sea, falsely claiming someone would escort them to Indonesia, only for the refugees to discover they had reached Myanmar.
Besides seeking the return and release of the deportees, the petition asks the Court to bar the arrest of Rohingyas holding UNHCR cards, ensure humane treatment, and reinstate residency permits.
Refusing to grant an urgent stay, the Court posted the matter for hearing on July 31, 2025, along with pending Rohingya-related pleas.
Justice Kant advised Gonsalves to approach the three-judge bench already seized of the issue:
Justice Kant said, “You are aware the matter was referred to a 3-judge bench. Stay was pressed and declined. Move an application before that bench.”
In a final attempt, Gonsalves urged the Court to intervene before more lives were lost.
Gonsalves argued, “If you don’t stay it now, they will land up in the same war zone and be killed.”
Justice Kant finally said, “Okay, we have heard enough. We have other cases also.”
UNI
