On May 16, 2025, the Supreme Court of India expressed serious doubts over a writ petition alleging that 43 Rohingyas, including women, children, elderly individuals, and those with severe health issues like cancer, were forcibly deported by the Indian Government to Myanmar after being thrown into international waters.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh refused to grant an interim order halting future deportation of Rohingyas from India. The bench emphasized that a three-judge bench led by Justice Kant on May 8, 2025, had already declined similar relief in another case.
“No Material Evidence to Support Allegations”: Supreme Court
Justice Kant remarked, “There is absolutely no material in support of the vague, evasive, and sweeping statements made. Unless the allegations are supported with some prima facie material, it is difficult for us to sit over an order passed by a larger bench.”
The bench also denied the petitioners' request for an urgent hearing, directing that the matter be listed along with other pending petitions on July 31, 2025. Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for the petitioners, urged for immediate intervention, citing a UN report that allegedly mentioned the deportation of Rohingyas. However, Justice Kant responded, “We will comment on the UN report when sitting in a three-judge composition.”
Read Also:- Supreme Court Rejects Plea for Action Against BJP Minister Vijay Shah Over Remarks on Colonel Sofiya
From the outset of the hearing, Justice Kant expressed skepticism, stating, “Every day, you come with one new story. What is the basis of this story? Very beautifully crafted story! Please show us the material on the record.”
Gonsalves explained that the deportees were allegedly taken to Andaman, dropped in the sea, and are now in a “war zone.” The bench questioned the authenticity of this claim, asking how the petitioner, located in Delhi, could verify these allegations.
Gonsalves informed the Court that the United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner (UN-OHCHR) had taken note of the issue. However, Justice Kant asked him to place the UN report on record for consideration.
Read Also:- Supreme Court to Hear Plea on NEET PG Marks Normalisation, Transparency Issues on May 20
The petitioners also cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in NHRC v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, arguing that even non-citizens are entitled to the fundamental right to life and liberty. In response, Justice Kant emphasized that the Chakma case was distinct, as the Union Government was then considering Indian citizenship for the Chakmas.
The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by two Rohingya refugees in Delhi alleged that some Rohingyas were detained by Delhi Police under the pretense of biometric data collection. The petition claims that they were transported to Port Blair, Andaman, and later forced onto naval ships with their hands tied and eyes blindfolded.
The plea further alleges that the deportees were abandoned in international waters and forced to swim to a nearby shoreline, which turned out to be Myanmar. It demands a declaration that such "forced and clandestine" deportation is unconstitutional, seeking a direction for the government to bring back the deportees to India and release them.
Justice Kant noted a “serious dispute” over the Rohingyas' status as refugees and pointed out that the principle of non-refoulement — which prevents sending refugees back to a country where they may face harm — has been judicially recognized in India, though India is not a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention.
Despite the petitioners' arguments, the bench maintained that there was no sufficient material to interfere with the government’s actions, leaving the deportation process unaffected for now.
Case Details: MOHAMMAD ISMAIL v. UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(Crl.) No.204/2025
