The Supreme Court on Tuesday took a tough stance while hearing a petition alleging disappearance of Rohingya refugees and questioned whether the judiciary can be expected to provide special protection to people who have entered the country illegally. The court said that our border towards the north-east is very sensitive. We cannot take any risk in this matter.
Leading the bench, Chief Justice CJI Surya Kant said, “Do you want us to roll out the red carpet for him?” The court questioned that Rohingyas are entering India through the underground route and are also demanding rights like food and shelter. CJI says, first they enter through tunnels, then demand rights like food and shelter.
Is it our responsibility to keep them: SC
Regarding the capabilities related to public interest, the CJI asked, “Are your poor children not entitled to these benefits? Do we have to stretch the law for so long?” The Supreme Court is hearing a petition demanding the custodial disappearance of 5 Rohingyas. The case will be heard on 16 December.
During the hearing, the bench highlighted the security concerns related to illegal migration. Especially on the northern borders of the country. The court said, “We have a very delicate border in North India. If an infiltrator enters the country illegally, is it our responsibility to keep him here?” These things were said by the court during the hearing of a petition, in which it was alleged that Rohingyas are continuously going missing.
‘Come in a wrong way and then ask for rights’
The CJI also questioned whether refugee is a well-defined term. Tell us which notification declares them refugees. On this the lawyer said that we are not challenging the deportation. We are considering a case of custodial disappearance.
On this, CJI Surya Kant said that if there is an infiltrator, is it our responsibility to keep him inside? He also said that if someone enters the country illegally, he later starts demanding his rights under the law.
However, during the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta raised questions on the basis of the petition and said that it has been filed by a person who has no right to raise such issues. He said, “This PIL, who has nothing to do with the Rohingya community, is saying these things.” And requested the court not to consider the petition.
However, after a brief hearing, the bench adjourned the case and said it would hear it again on December 16.
Leave a Reply