The Supreme Court of India took a strong and direct position on 2 December while discussing a case linked to Rohingya refugees who are reported missing. During the hearing, the judges questioned whether the judicial system should be expected to offer special protection or benefits to people who entered the country without any legal permission.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, who headed the bench, raised a blunt question in court. He asked, “Do you want us to roll out a red carpet for them?” His remark reflected the bench’s concern that many Rohingya migrants were allegedly coming into India through hidden and unofficial routes. The Chief Justice added that, after entering quietly, these individuals often began asking for essential facilities. As he put it, “They enter through tunnels and demand rights like food and shelter.”

The bench also talked about the country’s limited welfare resources. The Chief Justice wondered if India’s own poor children, who are citizens, should not receive first claim over public support. He questioned how much the law could be stretched to support individuals who had crossed the border illegally. At the same time, he made it clear that even illegal entrants must not be treated cruelly. He said the court was following a humane approach and explained that people who come into the country without permission still cannot be harmed or tortured in custody.

The Chief Justice stated, “Once these illegal migrants are in India, they claim right to food and shelter and help for their children. We have many poor people in the country. They have a right over the country’s resources, not the illegal migrants. True, the illegal migrants cannot be subjected to custodial torture.”

These observations came at a time when some groups have been asking the government to recognise Rohingyas as refugees. Rohingyas are a Muslim minority from Myanmar’s Rakhine state, and the military authorities there consider them Bengali outsiders rather than citizens of Myanmar.

National security concerns raised

During the hearing, the judges also spoke about the risks connected to illegal border crossings, especially in sensitive regions in North India. The Chief Justice stressed the importance of national security and asked, “If an intruder enters illegally, do we have the obligation to keep them here?”

The bench discussed that sending people back to their country, if required, could create certain “logistical issues.” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, argued that the current plea had not been filed by anyone directly affected by the situation. He said the petitioner did not have any legal standing to raise questions on behalf of the Rohingyas.

The Supreme Court recalled its earlier observation from July 31, when it heard several related petitions. The Court had said the first major task was to decide whether Rohingyas should be categorised as refugees or as illegal entrants. Justice Kant remarked, “The first major issue is simple, are they refugees or illegal entrants.”

The bench listed several broad issues that needed attention. One question was: “Whether the Rohingyas are entitled to be declared as refugees? If so, what protections, privileges or rights are they entitled to.”

Another major question was what should happen if the court decides that Rohingyas are not refugees but illegal entrants. In that case, the Court asked whether deporting them would be legally justified. It also asked whether such individuals could be kept in custody indefinitely, or whether they should be released on bail under certain conditions.

The court noted another important issue raised in the petitions: whether Rohingyas who are not detained but are living in camps in India have been provided basic needs like clean drinking water, toilets, and access to education. The bench also asked, “If the Rohingyas are illegal entrants, whether the government of India and the states are obligated to deport them in accordance with law.”

To make the hearings more organised, the bench divided the petitions into three groups: one set related specifically to Rohingyas, another unrelated to the issue, and a third concerning a completely different matter. The court said these three groups would be heard separately on consecutive Wednesdays.

The bench mentioned that regarding those found to be illegal entrants and the responsibility of the State to deport them, the Court would only define the legal principles instead of deciding each case individually.

The bench also recalled earlier petitions. On May 16, the Supreme Court criticised a claim that 43 Rohingya refugees, including women and children, were placed on boats near the Andaman Sea for deportation. The court called such accusations unsupported, especially during difficult national circumstances. It refused to halt deportations, as a similar request had been denied earlier.

On May 8, the Court had noted that if Rohingya refugees were found to be foreigners under Indian law, they would have to be deported accordingly. It also observed that identification cards from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) would not help them unless Indian law recognised their status.

The government questions the petition

The government strongly challenged the petition during the hearing. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the petition should not be heard because the person who filed it had “nothing to do with Rohingyas” and therefore had no authority to bring such a case. After listening to all sides, the Supreme Court postponed the matter and scheduled the next hearing for 16 December.

At the centre of the debate is a long-standing issue: whether the Rohingyas, who belong to a persecuted Muslim minority in Myanmar, should be allowed to remain in India or be sent back due to entering the country without legal permission. Since India is not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention, the government classifies them as “illegal migrants.”

The government says their presence raises security concerns. Intelligence agencies have earlier warned about human trafficking networks, fake identity documents, and possible links with extremist groups.

Human rights groups, however, argue that the Rohingyas are victims of violence and ethnic cleansing. They believe India must protect every human life under constitutional principles, regardless of nationality.

Most Rohingyas enter India illegally through Bangladesh, often using river routes, forests, and remote paths in West Bengal, Tripura, and Assam. Some also arrive through Jammu and parts of the Northeast. They eventually settle in basic camps in cities like Delhi, Jammu, Hyderabad, Mewat, and some regions in Rajasthan.

Since they do not have official identity documents, many depend on fake papers like voter IDs or Aadhaar cards to access basic services. These false documents and illegal entries form the main reasons the government argues they cannot be given full rights without restrictions.