A group of retired judges have condemned what they describe as a “motivated and misleading” campaign allegedly being carried out against Chief Justice of India Surya Kant following the Supreme Court’s recent observations in matters concerning Rohingya migrants.
In a strongly-worded public statement, the former judges said the criticism directed at the CJI was based on a distortion of the court’s proceedings and posed a risk to judicial independence at a time when the Bench was engaged in constitutionally mandated scrutiny of issues involving nationality, immigration, and the rights of foreigners.
The retired judges asserted that the controversy arose from a mischaracterisation of a basic legal inquiry made by the CJI on whether any lawful authority had granted refugee status to the petitioners seeking protection. They said such inquiries form an essential part of judicial scrutiny under Indian law, where the court must determine the legal foundation of any rights claimed by foreign nationals.
According to them, the Bench was engaged in assessing the legality of entry, status and documentation under the Foreigners Act, the Passports Act and relevant constitutional protections. They maintained that the criticism failed to acknowledge the Court’s concurrent affirmation that no person on Indian soil, irrespective of nationality, may be subjected to torture, disappearance or inhuman treatment, which is consistent with jurisprudence under Articles 14 and 21.
The statement reiterated that India is not a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or the 1967 Protocol and therefore does not recognise refugee status through any statutory framework. The retired judges observed that Rohingya individuals fall within the legal category of “foreigners” and that their protection arises solely from domestic law rather than any treaty obligations.
They referred to established Supreme Court jurisprudence, including decisions affirming the sovereign power of the Indian State to regulate the entry, stay and deportation of foreign nationals. These judgments emphasise that questions of identity and legal status must be assessed through domestic legislation.
The former judges expressed concern about reports that Rohingya individuals had obtained Aadhaar cards, ration cards and other Indian identity documents despite entering the country illegally. They warned that such incidents raise serious issues involving document fraud, official misconduct and potential security risks.
In their view, the matter warrants consideration of a Court-monitored Special Investigation Team to examine the illegal procurement of documents, investigate possible violations of the Aadhaar Act, offences relating to cheating and forgery under the Indian Penal Code, and breaches under the Foreigners Act and Passports Act. They argued that a specialised probe would help identify systemic failures and uncover any organised networks facilitating such activities.
The statement also highlighted the complex legal status of the Rohingya in Myanmar, where they have long been categorised as illegal migrants under the country’s 1982 Citizenship Law. The retired judges pointed out that this disputed citizenship background complicates claims being advanced before Indian courts and underscores the need for decisions to be grounded strictly in domestic legal categories rather than political or humanitarian labels.
Concluding their statement, the retired judges said personal attacks on members of the judiciary for raising legally relevant questions weaken institutional independence, which is safeguarded by the Constitution. They reaffirmed their confidence in the Supreme Court and in CJI Surya Kant, stating that the Court’s approach in the Rohingya matter reflects a constitutionally consistent balance between national security considerations and the protection of human dignity.
The post Former judges defend CJI Surya Kant amid criticism on cases related to Rohingya migrants appeared first on India Legal.