The Supreme Court on Friday strongly criticized a plea alleging that 43 Rohingya refugees, including women and children, were forcibly deported and left adrift in the Andaman Sea, calling the claims “fanciful ideas” lacking any credible basis, especially at a time when the nation is facing difficult circumstances.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh took a firm stance against the petition filed by Mohd Ismail and others, represented by senior advocate Colin Gonsalves. The bench refused to halt further deportations of Rohingya refugees and questioned the authenticity of the materials submitted.
“When the country is passing through a difficult time, you come out with such fanciful ideas,” Justice Kant remarked, expressing skepticism over allegations of torture and sea deportation. The bench noted that the claims appeared to be based on unverified social media content and lacked prima facie evidence.
Gonsalves contended that after the court’s previous hearing on May 8, several Rohingyas were deported, allegedly being “dropped into the sea,” and are now trapped in a war zone in Myanmar. He submitted a recorded phone call purportedly from a deported refugee as evidence.
However, the bench dismissed the credibility of the recording, asking, “Did anyone verify these phone calls that they originated from Myanmar? Earlier, we heard a case where calls were made from Jamtara in Jharkhand from phone numbers of US, UK, and Canada.”
When Gonsalves referred to a report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights acknowledging the deportation claims and launching an inquiry, the court retorted, “People sitting outside cannot dictate our authorities and sovereignty.”
The court further observed, “There is absolutely no material in support of the vague, evasive, and sweeping statements made. 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.”
Describing the petition as “a beautifully crafted story using flowery language,” the court indicated that it would consider the matter further on July 31 before a three-judge bench. The petitioners were directed to serve copies of the plea to the offices of the Attorney General and Solicitor General for communication to the appropriate authorities.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, reiterated that India is not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention and emphasized that deportation decisions would be made in accordance with Indian law. He cited the April 8, 2021 order of the apex court which held that while Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution apply to all persons, the right against deportation is not guaranteed unless accompanied by the right to reside under Article 19(1)(e), which is restricted to citizens.
The court reaffirmed that refugees found to be foreigners under Indian law must be dealt with under the Foreigners Act, irrespective of their possession of UNHCR identity cards.
