In a significant development within the legal fraternity, a collective of eminent jurists—including three retired High Court judges and several senior advocates—has addressed an open letter to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, expressing deep concern over his recent oral observations regarding Rohingya refugees. The signatories have termed the remarks made from the Bench as “unconscionable” and have urged the CJI to reaffirm the judiciary’s commitment to constitutional morality and human dignity.
The Trigger: “Red Carpet” for “Intruders”?
The controversy stems from a Supreme Court hearing on December 2, 2025, regarding a habeas corpus petition filed by activist Rita Manchanda. The petition raised concerns about the custodial disappearance of a group of Rohingya refugees and sought adherence to due process in deportation proceedings.
During the hearing, a Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant reportedly questioned the legal status of the Rohingyas, asking whether “intruders” who enter the country illegally should be welcomed with a “red carpet.” The CJI further remarked on the country’s limited resources, suggesting that the rights of the poor in India should take precedence over those of illegal migrants, and questioned whether those who “dig tunnels” to enter the country are entitled to facilities like food and shelter.
“Dehumanising Rhetoric”: The Open Letter
Taking strong exception to these oral observations, the open letter argues that such rhetoric threatens the foundational values of the Indian Constitution and undermines public faith in the judiciary as a refuge for the vulnerable.
“When those who flee violence and persecution are dismissed with rhetoric that is hostile to their very dignity… it weakens the moral authority of the judiciary,” the letter states. The signatories emphasized that equating vulnerable persons—many of whom are women and children fleeing genocidal persecution—with “intruders” serves to dehumanize them.
The letter poignantly reminds the Chief Justice that the “majesty of the Supreme Court and your office is measured not merely by the number of verdicts or administrative measures but more by the humanity with which those verdicts are delivered and considered.”
Constitutional Protections and Precedents
Legally, the letter challenges the premise that fundamental rights are exclusive to citizens. The signatories pointed out that Article 21 of the Constitution (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) applies to “any person” residing in India, not just citizens. They argued that reducing this right to merely a protection against “third-degree measures” is legally untenable.
“The Rohingya, as indeed any person residing in India, were entitled to the protections of Article 21… This fundamental right was available to an individual who was a citizen or any other person residing in India,” the letter asserts.
The jurists also highlighted India’s long-standing tradition of humanitarian protection, citing the examples of Tibetan and Sri Lankan refugees who were granted special documentation and access to socio-economic rights. They noted that the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) itself grants exemptions to certain persecuted minorities, acknowledging the reality of persecution in neighboring nations.
Prominent Signatories
The open letter brings together some of the most respected voices in the Indian legal community. The signatories include:
- Justice A.P. Shah (Former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court)
- Justice K. Chandru (Former Judge, Madras High Court)
- Justice Anjana Prakash (Former Judge, Patna High Court)
- Prof. Mohan Gopal (Former Director, National Judicial Academy)
- Senior Advocates: Rajeev Dhavan, Chander Uday Singh, Colin Gonsalves, Mihir Desai, and Gopal Sankaranarayanan.
- Advocates & Activists: Kamini Jaiswal, Prashant Bhushan, Nikhil Dey, and Anjali Bhardwaj.
Concluding their appeal, the legal veterans called upon CJI Surya Kant to issue public statements and judicial verdicts that reaffirm a commitment to justice for all, regardless of origin. They warned that invoking domestic poverty to deny basic rights to refugees sets a “dangerous precedent” that is contrary to the principles of constitutional justice.
