The Supreme Court on Tuesday raised concerns over whether Indian laws should be expanded to protect those who enter the country unlawfully, while hearing a petition related to the alleged disappearance of five Rohingya individuals who were earlier held in custody.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that India faces serious border challenges, and questioned the extent to which rights and benefits can be extended to foreign nationals who have crossed into the country without permission, reported Bar and Bench.
“Do we want to stretch law like this?”
During the hearing, CJI Kant asked if the demands being made on behalf of Rohingya immigrants would come at the cost of Indian citizens who rely on state welfare.
“We have sensitive border in the north India side and we hope you are aware of what is happening inside the country…And so you want a red carpet for them (immigrants)…you enter through tunnel, etc. and then you are entitled to food, shelter, right to education for children etc. Do we want to stretch law like this? Are not our poor children entitled to benefits? Asking habeas corpus, etc (for the release of detained immigrants) is very fanciful,” said the CJI, according to Bar and Bench.
The petitioner argued that the plea was focused solely on locating the missing individuals, and not on their possible deportation.
Bench questions refugee status; SG opposes plea
The Court also asked whether there was any material suggesting that the missing persons were recognised as refugees. CJI Kant remarked, “If somebody is an intruder…do we have an obligation to keep them inside?”
Responding to the Court’s concerns, the petitioner’s counsel said, “But we cannot traffic them out,” the report added.
Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed the petition, noting that the petitioner had no direct link to the Rohingya community. “A PIL petitioner who has nothing to do with Rohingyas is asking these prayers,” the SG said.
The Supreme Court noted the submissions of both sides and scheduled the matter for further hearing on December 16.