Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court on Friday (May 16) questioned and expressed disbelief at a writ petition which alleged that 43 Rohingyas, including children, women and elderly, and individuals with serious health conditions such as cancer, were forcibly deported by the Indian Government to Myanmar after throwing them into international waters.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh refused to pass interim orders halting the future deportation of Rohingyas from India, saying that a three-judge bench(also headed by Justice Kant) had on May 8 declined similar relief in another petition.

The bench observed that the scant materials in the petition cannot persuade it to differ from the view taken by the 3-judge bench last week.

"There is absolutely no material in support of the vague, evasive and sweeping statements made. Unless the allegations are supported with some prima facie material, it is difficult for us to sit over an order passed by a larger bench," the bench observed.

The bench also declined the petitioners' request for an urgent hearing and posted the matter along with the pending petitions to July 31, 2025.

"Time is against us. Please have next week. UN report says they were picked up and sent. Please hear before they die," Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves pleaded for the petitioner. However, the bench declined the request. "We will comment on the UN report when sitting in 3-judge composition," Justice Kant said.

'Beautifully crafted story' : Bench questions the petitioners

At the outset of the hearing itself, Justice Kant expressed disbelief at the petition, saying "Every day you come with one new story. What is the basis of this story? Very beautifully crafted story! Please show us the material on the record. What is the material to substantiate your allegations?."

Gonsalves said that persons were deported, after being taken to Andaman and dropped in the sea, and now they were in the "war zone."

"Who is the person watching them? Who video-recorded? How petitioner came back? He said he was there?" Justice Kant asked. Gonsalves said that the petitioners, who are in India, got telephonic calls regarding this. While he was taking the bench through the petition, Justice Kant said, "When the country is going through a difficult time, you come out with such fanciful ideas!"

Justice Kant also posed questions regarding the claims of phone calls received by the petitioner. Gonsalves said, "This is a tape recording from shores of Myanmar. Govt can verify, no problem. This is our relative who was deported."

Justice Kant asked how the petitioner, who is stated to be in Delhi, could verify the allegations regarding the forcible throwing into the sea from the Andaman shores. Gonsalves reiterated that the petitioner got phone calls.

Gonsalves also informed the Court that the United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner has taken note of the issue and started an inquiry into the matter. Justice Kant asked him to place the UN-OHCHR report on record. "Place these reports on record..we will see.. all these people who are sitting outside cannot challenge our sovereignty." Justice Kant said.

When Justice Kant said that he would tag the petition with the pending petitions on Rohingyas' issues, Gonsalves sought for an urgent interim order staying the deportation of Rohingyas.

Gonsalves placed reliance on the judgment in NHRC vs State of Arunachal Pradesh, which held that even non-citizens are entitled to fundamental rights of life and liberty and prevented the unlawful eviction of Chakma people. Justice Kant pointed out that in the said case, the Union Government had told the Court that grant of Indian citizenship for Chakmas was under consideration, and the Court's relief was granted in that context.

Justice Kant said that there was a "serious dispute" whether Rohingyas are refugees or not. At this juncture, Gonsalves referred to the judgment of the International Court of Justice, which held that Rohingyas were facing genocide threats in Myanmar. Justice Kant, however asked what was the "alarming material" which Gonsalves got after the similar matter was adjourned on May 8. Gonsavles said that the information about this petition was received after May 8.

"Everyday you keep collecting from social media..." Justice Kant commented. Gonsalves denied, saying that they are in direct touch with the Rohingya community. "We are in touch with the refugees. Today there are 8000 in country with UNHCR cards. Are the 600 in Delhi going to be put in war zone?" he asked.

A 3-judge bench led by Justice Kant on May 8 expressed that if Rohingyas do not have a right to stay in India, they would have to be deported as per law. "if they have a right to stay here, that should be acknowledged, and if they don't have a right to stay here, then they will follow the procedure and deport as per law", the judge said.

These cases were last listed for hearing on May 8, when it was brought to the notice of the Court that certain Rohingya refugees were deported "overnight" by authorities on May 7. However, it refused to interfere with the deportation, in view of a statement by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that the Union was bound by an earlier order of the Court to deport foreigners in accordance with law.

Briefly put, the PIL is filed by two Rohingya refugees in Delhi, alleging that persons in their group were detained by Delhi police officers under the pretext of collecting biometric data. They were then picked up in vans and buses and subsequently held in custody in various police stations for 24 hours. Subsequently, they were transferred to the Inderlok Detention Centre in Delhi, and later flown to Port Blair, where they were forcibly put on naval ships with their hands tied and blindfolded.

"To the utter shock of their families, the detainees were not released after the biometric collection. Instead, they were transported to airports and flown to Port Blair in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Later, they were forcibly put on naval ships with their hands tied and eyes blindfolded. They remained in that condition throughout the journey...Children as young as 15, female minors as young as 16, senior citizens up to 66 years old, and people suffering from cancer and other ailments were among those abandoned into the sea without regard for their lives or safety", the plea states.

What does the petition say?

Based on detainees' communication with their families, the petitioners claim that officials asked the deportees whether they wished to be sent to Myanmar or Indonesia. Fearing for their lives, all reportedly pleaded not to be deported to Myanmar and requested to be left in Indonesia. However, the authorities allegedly deceived them, binding their hands and feet and abandoning them in international waters under the false assurance that someone would arrive to escort them to Indonesia. Left stranded, the refugees were forced to swim toward a nearby shoreline using the lifejackets provided. Upon arrival, they were devastated to discover that they had reached Myanmar.

The petitioners claim that children were separated from their mothers and families split on account of this forcible deportation. They seek a declaration that "forced and clandestine" deportation of Rohingyas is unconstitutional, and a direction for the Union to immediately take steps to fly the deportees back to Delhi (India) and release them from custody. The petition lists the names and details of the deportees, including their UNHCR card numbers.

It further seeks a direction against the Union to hereinafter not arrest/take into custody Rohingyas with a UNHCR card, and to treat them with respect and dignity to ensure that their human rights are not violated. A compensation of Rs.50 lakhs is also sought for each Rohingya deportee, besides restarting of residency permit issuance to UNHCR cardholders as per the Domestic Refugee policy.

It is asserted by the petitioners that though India is not a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, the principle of non-refoulement (which prohibits expulsion of a refugee, who apprehends a threat in his native country on account of his identity) has been judicially accepted in many judgments.

Case Details: MOHAMMAD ISMAIL v. UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(Crl.) No.204/2025