Institute of Legal and Management Studies

A writ petition has been filed in the Supreme Court alleging that 43 Rohingya refugees, including children, women and the 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.

The Supreme Court bench of Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice N Kotiswar Singh is currently hearing cases relating to the deportation and living conditions of Rohingya refugees. On May 8, when the matter was listed, the Court was informed that some refugees with United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) cards, including women and children, were arrested by police authorities late at nigh on May 7 and deported, despite the matter being listed.

The Court however, listed it for hearing on July 31 without passing any interim directions, when Solicitor General Tushar Mehta drew attention to an order dated April 8, 2021, which allowed deportation of the foreigners in accordance with law.

In the new writ petition, filed as a PIL by two Rohingya refugees in Delhi, it is alleged 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, they were flown to Port Blair, where they were forcibly put on naval ships with their hands tied and blindfolded, alleged the petitioners.

"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."

As stated in the petition, according to detainees who communicated with their families, officials had asked whether they wished to be sent to Myanmar or Indonesia. Fearing for their lives, all reportedly pleaded not to be deported to Myanmar, requesting instead 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 claimed that children were separated from their mothers, and families were split while carrying out this forcible deportation.

The petitioners sought a declaration that "forced and clandestine" deportation of the Rohingyas is unconstitutional and a direction to the Union of India to forthwith take steps to fly the said Rohingyas back to New Delhi, India, from wherever they are and to release them from custody. The petition listed the names and details of the deportees, including their UNHCR card numbers.

The petitioner also sought a direction to the Union of India to hererinafter not arrest or take into custody Rohingya with an UNHCR card, and to treat them with respect and dignity and to ensure that their human rights are not violated in any manner.

They also sought Rs 50 lakh compensation to each of the Rohingya deportees and to restart issuing residency permits to UNHCR cardholders as per the Domestic Refugee policy.

The petitioners argued that although India was 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 vs. UNION OF INDIA|Diary No. - 25892/2025