Supreme Court on Rohingyas, Rohingya refugees vs illegal entrants, Rohingya deportation India,The bench segregated the pleas in three groups — one relating to Rohingya refugees, another not pertaining to the issue of Rohingya and one plea that it said pertains to a different matter altogether. (AP file photo)
The Supreme Court on Thursday said the first major issue to be dealt with in cases concerning Rohingya is whether they are refugees or illegal entrants.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and N Kotiswar Singh said once that is decided, the other issues might be consequential.
The court observed this while hearing a batch of pleas concerning Rohingya in the country.
“The first major issue is simple, are they refugees or illegal entrants,” Justice Kant observed.
The bench took note of the broad issues that arise for its consideration in the pleas relating to Rohingya.
Festive offer
“Whether the Rohingya are entitled to be declared as refugees? If so, what protections, privileges or rights they are entitled to?” the bench said.
It said the second issue is if the Rohingya are not refugees and are illegal entrants, whether the action of the Centre and states in deporting them was justified.
“Even if the Rohingya have been held to be illegal entrants, can they be detained indefinitely or they are entitled to be released on bail, subject to such conditions as the court may deem fit to be imposed?” it asked.
The court said the other issue raised in the petitions is whether the Rohingya, who have not been detained and are living in refugee camps, have been provided basic amenities like drinking water, sanitation and education.
“If the Rohingya are illegal entrants, whether the Government of India and the states are obligated to deport them in accordance with law,” it noted.
The bench segregated the pleas in three groups — one relating to Rohingya, another not pertaining to the issue of Rohingya and one plea that it said pertains to a different matter altogether.
It said the three groups of matters would be determined separately and it would fix those for hearing on consecutive Wednesdays.
The bench indicated that on the point of those who were found to be illegal entrants and on the question of the State’s responsibility to deport them, it could only lay down the principles.
During the hearing, the bench asked why these petitions were tagged for hearing.
The counsel appearing for the petitioners said there were overlapping issues in the pleas and one of the core issues pertained to the detention of Rohingya.
One of the lawyers said the Rohingya cannot be detained indefinitely.
On May 16, the apex court had rapped some petitioners who had claimed that 43 Rohingya refugees, including women and children, were dropped in the Andaman sea for deportation to Myanmar and said “when the country is passing through a difficult time, you come out with fanciful ideas”.
It had questioned the authenticity of the material placed before it by petitioner Mohammad Ismail and others and refused to stay any further deportation of Rohingya, saying a similar relief was denied by the court earlier.
On May 8, the top court had said if the Rohingya refugees in the country were found to be foreigners under Indian laws, they would have to be deported.
The court had then referred to its earlier order and remarked that the identity cards issued by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) may not be of any help to them under the laws.
