- Chief Justice Surya Kant questioned if illegal immigrants deserve legal protection in India
- The petition sought tracking and legal deportation of five missing Rohingya from custody
- CJI emphasized citizens deserve priority over illegal immigrants for state benefits
Coming down heavily on a petition that sought the tracking of five missing Rohingya, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant has asked if the country should roll out a red carpet for illegal immigrants. The Chief Justice also asked if the State has an obligation to keep someone in the country if s/he has entered illegally.
The petition had flagged the disappearance of five Rohingya from custody and argued that deportation should follow a legal process.
"First, you enter, you cross the border illegally. You dig a tunnel or cross the fence...Then you say, Now that I have entered, your laws must apply to me. You say, I am entitled to food, I am entitled to shelter, my children are entitled to education. Do we want to stretch the law like this?" the Chief Justice said.
"We too have poor people in the country. They are citizens. Are they not entitled to certain benefits and amenities? Why not concentrate on them?" he said. He noted that filing a habeas corpus petition in such matters is very "fanciful". In a habeas corpus matter, any individual in detention must be produced before a court for a judge to assess if the custody is lawful.
The Chief Justice, however, stressed that even somebody who entered illegally should not be subjected to "third-degree methods".
The Chief Justice also pointed out that the government has not declared the Rohingya as refugees. "If there is no legal status of a refugee, and somebody is an intruder and he enters illegally, do we have an obligation to keep that fellow here? We have a very sensitive border in north India. If an intruder comes, do we give them a red carpet welcome?" CJI Kant asked.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the petition should not be entertained unless the affected parties approach the court. The Supreme Court then adjourned the matter to December 16 to be heard with similar pending petitions.
