SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.A. BOBDE, CJI., A.S. BOPANNA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.
Mohammad Salimullah And Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India And Ors - Respondent
Interlocutory Application No.38048 of 2021 In Writ Petition (Civil) No.793 of 2017
Decided On : 08-04-2021
Foreigners Act, 1946 – Section 3 – Constitution of India – Articles 19(1)(e), 21 and 51(c) – Deportation of Rohingyas from Jammu to Myanmar – Persons similarly placed like petitioners are housed in refugee camps in New Delhi, Haryana, Allahabad, Jammu and various other places in India – India is not a signatory to United Nations Convention on Status of Refugees 1951 – Rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 are available to all persons who may or may not be citizens – But right not to be deported, is ancillary or concomitant to right to reside or settle in any part of territory of India guaranteed under Article 19(1)(e) – Two serious allegations have been made in reply of Union of India – They relate to threat to internal security of country and agents and touts providing a safe passage into India for illegal immigrants, due to porous nature of landed borders – Moreover, this court has already dismissed I.A. No. 142725 of 2018 filed for similar relief, in respect of those detained in Assam – It is not possible to grant interim relief prayed for – However, Rohingyas in Jammu, on whose behalf present application is filed, shall not be deported unless procedure prescribed for such deportation is followed. (Paras 5, 13, 14 and 15)
Facts of the case:
Pending disposal of their main writ petition praying for the issue of an appropriate writ directing respondents to provide basic human amenities to the members of the Rohingya Community, who have taken refuge in India, the petitioners who claim to have registered themselves as refugees with the United Nations High Commission for refugees, have come up with the present interlocutory application seeking (i) the release of detained Rohingya refugees; and (ii) a direction to the Union of India not to deport the Rohingya refugees who have been detained in sub-jail in Jammu.
Findings of Court:
There is no denial of the fact that India is not a signatory to the Refugee Convention. Therefore, serious objections are raised, whether Article 51(c) of Constitution can be pressed into service, unless India is a party to or ratified a convention. But there is no doubt that the National Courts can draw inspiration from International Conventions/Treaties, so long as they are not in conflict with the municipal law.
Result : Interlocutory Application disposed of with directions.
ORDER :
1. Pending disposal of their main writ petition praying for the issue of an appropriate writ directing the respondents to provide basic human amenities to the members of the Rohingya Community, who have taken refuge in India, the petitioners who claim to have registered themselves as refugees with the United Nations High Commission for refugees, have come up with the present interlocutory application seeking (i) the release of the detained Rohingya refugees; and (ii) a direction to the Union of India not to deport the Rohingya refugees who have been detained in the subjail in Jammu.
2. We have heard Sh. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel and Sh. Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants/writ petitioners, Sh. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India, Sh. Harish Salve, learned senior counsel appearing for the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, Sh. Vikas Singh and Sh. Mahesh Jethmalani, learned senior counsel appearing for persons who seek to implead/intervene in the matter.
3. Sh. Chandra Uday Singh, learned senior counsel representing the Special Rapporteur appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council also attempted to make submissions, but serious objections were raised to his intervention.
4. According to the petitioners, both of them are Rohingya refugees from Myanmar and they are housed in a refugee’s camp. They claim to have fled Myanmar in December2011 when ethnic violence broke out.
5. It appears that persons similarly placed like the petitioners are housed in refugee camps in New Delhi, Haryana, Allahabad, Jammu and various other places in India.
6. On 8.08.2017 the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India issued a letter to the Chief Secretaries of all the State Governments/UT Administrations, advising them to sensitize all the law enforcement and intelligence agencies for taking prompt steps and initiating deportation processes. It is this circular which prompted the petitioners to approach this Court with the above writ petition.
7. According to the petitioners, new circumstances have now arisen, as revealed by newspaper reports appearing in the first/second week of March, 2021, to the effect that about 150170 Rohingya refugees detained in a subjail in Jammu face deportation back to Myanmar. The reports that appeared in The Wire, The Hindu, The Indian Express and The Guardian are relied upon to show that there are more than about 6500 Rohingyas in Jammu and that they have been illegally detained and jailed in a subjail now converted into a holding centre.
8. The contention of the petitioners is (i) that the principle of nonrefoulement is part of the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution; (ii) that the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 are available even to noncitizens; and (iii) that though India is not a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees 1951, it is a party to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 and the Convention on the Rights of the Child 1992 and that therefore nonrefoulement is a binding obligation. The petitioners also contend that India is a signatory to the Protection of All Persons against Enforced Disappearances, Convention against Torture and Other Cruel and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
9. Heavy reliance is placed upon a recent Judgment of International Court of Justice in The Gambia vs. Myanmar dated 23.01.2020 to show that even the International Court has taken note of the genocide of Rohingyas in Myanmar and that the lives of these refugees are in serious danger, if they are deported. According to the petitioners, Rohingyas were persecuted in Myanmar even when an elected Government was in power and that now the elected Government has been over thrown by a military coup and that therefore the danger is imminent.
10. The Union of India has filed a reply contending inter alia (i) that a simil
Deportation of Rohingyas from Jammu to Myanmar – Right not to be deported, is ancillary or concomitant to right to reside or settle in any part of territory of India guaranteed under Article 19(1)(e)....
The welfare of the detainees, especially family members, should be considered in decisions regarding their detention and transfer.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the fulfillment of statutory requirements for Indian citizenship by birth and the consideration of public interest in issuing passports to non-citi....
The wrongful detention of a minor, without adequate consideration of human rights and refugee status, constitutes a misuse of executive discretion under immigration law.
Habeas corpus applications are essential in safeguarding personal liberty; courts must inquire into detainees' circumstances, particularly regarding minors and refugees, ensuring adherence to legal s....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.