• Associate Sponsor

SC defers hearing on Rohingya deportation to November 21, but warns against emotional arguments

The latest development comes after the Union Home Ministry in July said illegal immigrants such as Rohingyas pose security challenges as they may be recruited by terror groups

By: Express Web Desk | New Delhi | Updated: October 13, 2017 7:04 pm
Rohingya muslims, rohingya crisis, rohingya deportation, supreme court, SC on Rohingya, Rohingya hearing date, rohingya issue, myanmar, india myanmar Shah Porir Dwip: Rohingya Muslims, who crossed over from Myanmar into Bangladesh, carry an elderly woman in a basket and walk towards a refugee camp in Shah Porir Dwip (Source: AP)

Stating that the issue of deportation of the Rohingya Muslims is of “great magnitude” and that the state has a big role to play in this, the Supreme Court on Friday deferred the hearing on the matter to November 21 but allowed the petitioners to approach it in case of any contingency.

“It is a large issue. A issue of great magnitude. Therefore, the state has a big role. The role of the state in such a situation has to be multipronged,” said the bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra.

The apex court also underlined that there was a need for holistic hearing and that it is neither going to be swayed by the arguments of senior lawyer Fali S Nariman, who is representing the petitioners, nor by any other senior counsel and the submissions have to go by the letter of the law. “We will not permit any emotional arguments,” the bench observed.

The latest development comes nearly three months after the Union Home Ministry stated that illegal immigrants such as Rohingyas pose security challenges as they may be recruited by terror groups. In July, the ministry had directed state governments to set up a task force at the district level to identify and deport illegally staying foreign nationals.

On August 9, the government told Parliament that more than 14,000 Rohingya registered with UNHCR are in India, as per available data. Around 40,000 Rohingya are residing in India illegally, as per some inputs. They are largely located in Jammu, Hyderabad, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Delhi-NCR and Rajasthan.

ALSO READ: Inhuman to deport kids: Child rights body to Supreme Court

In September, the government informed the apex court that the “illegal” influx of Rohingya was “seriously harming national security of the country”. India also told the United Nations Human Rights Council that the prevailing situation in Myanmar’s Rakhine state should be handled with “restraint” and focus on the “welfare of the civilian population”.

Over 500,000 Rohingya Muslims have crossed over to Bangladesh since late August after Myanmar security forces retailiated to militant attacks with a broad crackdown that allegedly included killing and arson.

With PTI inputs

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App

  1. Mohan Tvm
    Oct 14, 2017 at 12:25 am
    The blindly religious Rohingyas are poor innocent people, sufficient rationale for Human Rights groups and NGOs to move SC. Behind the mask lies hardcore fundamentalism and criminal mindsets. There are less than a million Rohingyas in Pakistan. They were brought there, during 70s 80s, not as refugees or workers, but as militant warriors, for fighting against the USSR in Afghanistan. The senseless suicide fighters later joined Taliban forces. They were active contributors of ISIS and were also part of the 26/11 Mumbai terror strikes. The iden y of Pak based terror handlers who guided each step of the terrorists during the Mumbai terror attack is still a mystery. It was a sort of divine intervention that Kasab developed cold-feet and failed to destroy himself as per the instruction of his handlers and jihadi indoctrination. If Ajmal Kasab had not been caught alive the plot of b ing the 26/11 attack as Saffron Terror would have nearly succeeded
    (0)(0)
    Reply
    1. Nissar Ahmed Naik
      Oct 13, 2017 at 8:36 pm
      The Rohingya Refugees Case involves not only the laws of India but also the International Law. If deportation of Rohingya refugees is against International Law then Supreme Court will surely take note of it. I do not think India would be a rogue nation which would disregard International Law.
      (0)(5)
      Reply
      1. A
        avinash
        Oct 13, 2017 at 8:42 pm
        Cons ution of India is supreme... dia is not a Banana republic like Pakistan which will be run under International pressure. Article 51 of the consti ution says that we shall respect the sovereignty of ours as well as others....by sovereign in preamble it means "we the people"....we have an elected executive...who represents the country......National security is supreme and is in fact above the fundamental rights as well ...forget about human rights
        (4)(0)
        Reply
        1. Nissar Ahmed Naik
          Oct 14, 2017 at 2:30 pm
          The cons ution of India amply makes clear that our country has to respect its international obligations.The deportation of the Rohingya refugees would not be consistent with the spirit of Article 51(c) of the Cons ution, which calls on India to respect its international obligations. The reason the Supreme Court of India has decided to hear a case is that the proposed deportation is in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 and Article 21 of the Cons ution, which ensure the right to equality and to life respectively. Even though India is not a signatory to the Refugee Convention, it is a party to International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
          (0)(0)
          1. Nissar Ahmed Naik
            Oct 14, 2017 at 2:36 pm
            The cons ution of India makes it amply clear that our country has to respect its international obligations. The deportation of the Rohingya refugees would not be consistent with the spirit of Article 51(c) of the Cons ution, which calls on India to respect its international obligations. The reason the Supreme Court of India has decided to hear a case is that the proposed deportation is in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 and Article 21 of the Cons ution, which ensure the right to equality and to life respectively. Even though India is not a signatory to the Refugee Convention, it is a party to International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
            (0)(0)
        2. A
          avinash
          Oct 13, 2017 at 8:09 pm
          Judicial activism is transforming onto judicial overreach . I think the cons ution makers held that separation of powers must be respected by all the body of the government be it executive, legislature or judiciary. NJAC was also struct down in the name of independence of judiciary. However, the balance should be struct between the executive and judiciary. since the executive is responsible and accountable to people and not judiciary. I think judiciary is undermining the democracy by completing ignoring afrosaid of the executive. Our cons ution gives national security more importance even to the fundamental rights. Fundamental rights are fundamental and it being included considering all the human rights and children rights, but nothing in our cons ution is above national security.Preamble says "we the people"..gives our cons ution... we elect executives not judiciary....we dont want rohang
          (2)(1)
          Reply
          1. I
            Indian
            Oct 13, 2017 at 7:50 pm
            Why is INDIAN SC insisting on INDIA accepting the RIFF RAFF ROHINGYAS not wanted by anyone in the world when INDIA already has more than 30 CRORE POOR INDIANS to be looked after- there are only TWO COUNTRIES in the world with more than 30 CRORE POPULATION in the world other than India- CHINA and USA.
            (6)(0)
            Reply
            1. N
              NAMASIVAYAM CHOKKALINGAM
              Oct 13, 2017 at 7:48 pm
              It is as clear as can be that the SC trespasses.
              (0)(0)
              Reply
              1. Load More Comments