SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(SC) 186

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Prashant Bhushan, AOR Ms. Cheryl Dsouza, Adv. Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sneha Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Fazal Abdali, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, AOR
For the Respondents/Applicants: Mr. Lakshmi Raman Singh, AOR Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, AOR Mr. Somiran Sharma, AOR Mr. Suvidutt M.S., AOR Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, AOR Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Ms. Madhvi Divan, ASG Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. B.V. Balram Das, AOR Mr. Tushar Mehta, Ld. SG Ms. Madhvi Diwan, Ld. ASG Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makkar, AOR Mr. Kanu Agrawal, AOR Ms. Shradha Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Ms./Mr. Advnidhi Khanna, Adv. Mr. Mohit Paul, AOR Ms. Sunaina Phul, Adv. Mr. B K Satija, AAG, Haryana Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR Mr. Sanjeev Prakash Upadhyaya, Adv. Mr. Gautam Jha, AOR Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Abhishek, AOR Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick, AOR Mr. Surendranath, Sr. Adv. Mr. Subhash Chandran KR, Adv. Ms. Resmitha R. Chandran, AOR Ms. Lekha Sudhakaran, Adv. Mr. P.V. Surendranath, Sr. Adv. Ms. Resmitha R. Chandran, AOR Mr. Subhas Chandran, Adv. Ms. Lekha Sudhakaran, Adv. Mr. Sawan Kumar Shukla, Adv. Mr. Nalin Kohli, Adv. Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Mr. Ankit Roy, Adv. Ms. Nimisha Menon, Adv. Mr. Harish Salve, Sr. Adv. Ms. Taruna Ardhendumauli Prasad, AOR Mr. Parth Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajeev K. Panday, Adv. Mr. Ravi Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, AOR Mr. P. Srinivasan, Adv. Mr. Chandra Uday Singh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Deeksha Gujral, Adv. Mr. N K Verma, Adv. Ms. Anjana Chandrashekar, AOR Mr. Manoj K. Mishra, AOR Mr. Umesh Dubey, Adv. Mr. Prateek Som, Adv. Mr. Jyoti Mishra, Adv. Mr. Alok Pandey, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
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).

Headnote:

Foreigners Act, 1946 – Section 3Constitution 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


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top