0.1620
900 319 0030
x

SC Decision on Rohingyas Deportation

iasparliament Logo
October 10, 2018

What is the issue?

  • Seven Rohingya men were recently deported to Myanmar for being "illegal immigrants".
  • The Supreme Court dismissed an application to restrain the government from taking steps for deportation.

What is the deportation case?

  • The men had entered Assam in 2012 without documentation and were prosecuted for illegal entry under the Foreigners Act.
  • A case challenging the government’s move to carry out en masse deportation of Rohingya refugees is still pending before the Supreme Court.
  • Given this, the deportation of seven Rohingya men was unexpected and contentious.
  • The government says that the detainees had consented to return and the Myanmar Embassy had confirmed they were “citizens”.
  • An intervention application was filed before the SC, seeking a stay order.
  • The petition says the detainees were “refugees” as they were at the risk of persecution.
  • But the matter was dismissed by the Bench noting that they were “illegal immigrants”.

Why is the court's decision disputable?

  • Constitution - In NHRC v. State of Arunachal, the Court extended protection under Article 14 and 21 to refugees.
  • Given the circumstances, refugees often cross borders without prior planning or valid documentation.
  • If not for anything, this should reinforce their status as “refugees” and not "illegal immigrants".
  • Here, evidently, the Rohingya deported to Myanmar are at the risk of being tortured, indefinitely detained and even killed.
  • International law - Further, various high courts have upheld the customary international law principle of non-refoulement.
  • It is the practice of not forcing refugees or asylum seekers to return to a country in which they are liable to be subjected to persecution.
  • In view of these principles, the deportation potentially violates Article 21, and India’s international obligations.
  • Citizens - The argument that the men are “citizens” and therefore not in need of protection is without legal basis.
  • Refugees frequently, though not always, are citizens of the state they are fleeing from.
  • Government's claim that the men have been accepted as “citizens” by Myanmar is disputable as the root of the plight of the Rohingya is the denial of citizenship.
  • In Myanmar, they are being issued the controversial National Verification Card.
  • This does not recognise their religion or ethnicity and definitely does not confer citizenship.
  • Judiciary - In the absence of a domestic refugee protection law, it is for the judiciary to extend minimum constitutional protection to refugees.
  • By allowing this deportation, the SC has set a new precedent that is contrary to India’s core constitutional tenets.
  • However, it is important to not overstate the implications, as the order was based on the notion that the men had consented to return.
  • So in cases where there is no consent, this cannot apply as a precedent.

 

Source: Indian Express

Login or Register to Post Comments
There are no reviews yet. Be the first one to review.

ARCHIVES

MONTH/YEARWISE ARCHIVES

Free UPSC Interview Guidance Programme