Supreme Court’s Rohingya Remarks ‘Unconscionable,’ Say Ex-Judges, Lawyers
A Bench Questioned Refugees’ Legal Status, Asked if ‘Intruders’ Deserve Rights
December 6, 2025
A group of former judges and senior advocates have denounced recent comments made by a Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi during a Supreme Court hearing on Rohingya refugees, calling the remarks “unconscionable” and contrary to constitutional values. In a public letter, the signatories said the comments dehumanised vulnerable refugees and undermined the moral authority of the judiciary.
The criticism stems from a December 2 hearing on a plea filed by scholar and human rights activist Rita Manchanda regarding the alleged custodial disappearance of Rohingya detainees, as stated in the open letter dated December 5.
During the hearing, the bench reportedly questioned the legal status of Rohingya refugees, equated them with illegal intruders, mentioned tunnel-digging to cross borders, and asked whether they were entitled to food, shelter or education. Referring to those entering without documents, the bench asked, “If an intruder comes, do we give them a red carpet welcome?” as reported by The Wire. The bench also said those detained should at least be spared third-degree treatment.
The letter’s authors said such language violated Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty to all persons, regardless of citizenship. They cited the 1996 Supreme Court ruling in NHRC v State of Arunachal Pradesh, which stated that “the State is bound to protect the life and liberty of every human being, be he a citizen or otherwise.”
The letter warned that these comments could influence the broader judicial ecosystem, from High Courts to lower courts and other authorities, potentially diminishing protections for those most at risk. The signatories argued that invoking India’s poverty to justify denying constitutional rights to refugees undermines the idea of justice for all.
The Rohingya are a stateless Muslim minority from Buddhist-majority Myanmar who have fled decades of state-led persecution, including what the International Court of Justice has described as genocide. The United Nations has called them “the most persecuted minority in the world.”
India has historically offered refuge to people fleeing persecution, including Tibetans, Sri Lankan Tamils, Chins from Myanmar, and millions during the 1971 Bangladesh crisis. The letter cited past examples where the government documented and extended humanitarian protections to such groups while balancing national security concerns.
The letter also referenced India’s Standard Operating Procedure for Foreign Nationals Claiming to be Refugees, introduced in 2011 and revised in 2019. The SOP defines a refugee as someone with a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, sex, nationality, ethnicity, social group membership or political opinion.
The signatories noted that under international customary law, refugee status determination is declaratory, not discretionary, meaning a person is a refugee because they meet the legal criteria, not because a government “grants” the status. They stressed that every individual claiming refugee status must undergo a formal assessment, and that deportation or imprisonment without such a process violates the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits returning people to places where they face danger.
They argued that the courts have already interpreted non-refoulement as part of Article 21, making any act of detention or removal without due process illegal under both Indian and international law.
The Citizenship Amendment Act, which excludes Muslims from a fast-track citizenship path granted to religious minorities fleeing persecution from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh, was also mentioned. Multiple petitions challenging the law’s constitutionality remain pending before the court.
The letter said judicial authority is measured by the humanity with which verdicts are delivered, not just the number of cases heard or decided. It argued that dismissive rhetoric about persecuted people weakens public trust in the courts as protectors of the vulnerable and raises legitimate fears of prejudice.
The authors said the Supreme Court, and the office of the Chief Justice in particular, should reaffirm its commitment to constitutional morality and human dignity in both statements and verdicts.
The signatories include former Delhi High Court Chief Justice A.P. Shah, former Madras High Court judge K. Chandru, former Patna High Court judge Anjana Prakash, and senior advocates Rajeev Dhavan, Colin Gonsalves, Chander Uday Singh, Kamini Jaiswal and Mihir Desai.
Others who endorsed the letter include advocates Gautam Bhatia, Shahrukh Alam, Gopal Shankar Narayan, Cheryl D’souza, Siddhartha Sharma, Devvrat and Indira Unninayar; academics Mohan Gopal and Vijayan M.J.; transparency activists Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri; NCPRI co-convenor Annie Raja; housing rights convenor Indu Prakash Singh; and Common Cause director Vipul Mudgal.
The letter also bears the signatures of Prashant Bhushan, Nikhil Dey, Alok Prasanna Kumar, Venkatesh Sundaram, Beena Pallical, Meera Sanghamitra and Koninika Ray.
You have just read a News Briefing by Newsreel Asia, written to cut through the noise and present a single story for the day that matters to you. Certain briefings, based on media reports, seek to keep readers informed about events across India, others offer a perspective rooted in humanitarian concerns and some provide our own exclusive reporting. We encourage you to read the News Briefing each day. Our objective is to help you become not just an informed citizen, but an engaged and responsible one.
