A coalition of former judges, senior advocates, scholars and civil rights activists has written an open letter to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, objecting to what they describe as “unconscionable remarks” made by a Supreme Court bench on 2 December 2025 during a hearing concerning the alleged custodial disappearance of Rohingya refugees.
This comes as the Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned how individuals who enter India illegally can insist on the application of due legal process for their removal, as it heard a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging that several Rohingya people were deported without following prescribed procedures.
CJI Surya Kant asked the petitioner’s counsel how intruders who “cross a fenced border, dig a tunnel, and enter India illegally” could then claim entitlement to notices, food, shelter and other protections. “Do we want to stretch the law like this?” he asked, responding to the counsel’s allegation that five Rohingya people had been deported without due process.
The Bench also questioned whether the Centre had ever granted these individuals refugee status. “Where is the order by the Government of India declaring them as refugees? ‘Refugee’ is a well-defined legal term, and there is a prescribed authority to declare it,” the CJI observed.
The letter, signed by prominent members of the legal fraternity, states that the comments made in court were “contrary to core constitutional values” and had the effect of “dehumanising Rohingya refugees whose equal humanity and equal human rights are protected by the Constitution, our laws, and by international law.”
The plea under consideration had been filed by Dr. Rita Manchanda, a widely respected scholar and human rights activist specialising in conflict resolution and South Asian displacement.
The signatories note that Dr. Manchanda has long worked with “vulnerable and marginalised groups, including forcibly displaced persons,” and that the matter required sensitivity rather than remarks that could invoke prejudice.
The letter expresses deep concern over statements reportedly made from the bench which questioned the very legal status of the Rohingya as refugees.
The signatories state that they were alarmed by the bench’s descriptions that appeared to equate refugees with “intruders illegally entering India”, including comparisons to persons “who dig tunnels to enter illegally.”
They also point to comments that questioned whether such people were entitled to “food, shelter and education,” and a remark suggesting only that they be spared “third degree measures” in custody.
“These statements,” the letter says, “further dehumanise those fleeing genocidal persecution and weaken the moral authority of the judiciary.”
It stressed that such rhetoric “has a cascading effect on the High Courts, the lower judiciary and other government authorities.”
The authors emphasise that the Rohingya have been described by the United Nations as “the most persecuted minority in the world,” and that those who have come to India are fleeing “ethnic cleansing and genocide at the hands of the armed forces” in Myanmar.
They remind the CJI that India has for centuries provided refuge to those escaping persecution, and that the Rohingya, like any other person residing within Indian territory, are constitutionally guaranteed the right to life and liberty.
The letter quotes from the Supreme Court’s own precedent in NHRC v. State of Arunachal Pradesh (1996), stating: “The State is bound to protect the life and liberty of every human being, be he a citizen or otherwise.”
According to the signatories, the recent remarks “run directly counter to this foundational principle.”
Addressing the CJI directly, they wrote, “As the head of the judiciary, the Chief Justice is not just a legal functionary but is also the custodian and final arbiter of the rights of the poor, the dispossessed, and the marginalised.”
They warn that comments made by the Court, even informally, “carry weight not simply in the courtroom but in the conscience of the nation.”
They argue that invoking India’s domestic poverty as a justification for denying basic entitlements to refugees sets a “dangerous precedent” and violates the principles of constitutional justice.
The letter insists that the right to life under Article 21 applies equally to all individuals, including refugees, and does not reduce to a mere protection from torture or police excess.
“The Rohingya,” it says, “as indeed any person residing in India, is entitled to the protections of Article 21 and not just protections from ‘third degree measures’.”
The signatories also highlight that refugee status is materially distinct from illegal immigration, writing that “refugee status determination is declaratory in nature: a person does not become a refugee because of recognition, but is recognised because he or she is a refugee.”
They noted that deporting or detaining individuals without individually assessing their claims violates the non-refoulement norm, which courts have already recognised as part of Article 21.
They further highlighted that India already has a Standard Operating Procedure for foreign nationals claiming refugee status, first issued in 2011 and revised in 2019, and that the definition provided in this SOP reflects well-established international standards. This, they say, shows that India’s domestic practice does not conflict with international refugee law.
The letter stresses India’s historical commitment to providing refuge, citing the government’s documentation and protection for Tibetans and Sri Lankan Tamils, and the large-scale shelter provided to refugees from East Pakistan in 1970–71.
It also references the Citizenship Amendment Act, noting that the legislation itself distinguishes refugees from migrants, although it restricts recognition to non-Muslim minorities and is currently under judicial scrutiny.
Arguing that the Court must remain a “refuge for the vulnerable,” the signatories warn that remarks hostile to the dignity of refugees “provide a reasonable basis for apprehension of prejudice” and risk eroding public confidence in the judiciary.
They urge the CJI to “reaffirm, in public statements, remarks in court and judicial verdicts, a commitment to constitutional morality based on human dignity and justice for all, regardless of origin.”
“The majesty of the Supreme Court and your office is measured not merely by the number of verdicts or administrative measures but more by the humanity with which those verdicts are delivered and considered,” they said.
The letter carries the signatures of Justice A.P. Shah, former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court; Justice K. Chandru, former Judge of the Madras High Court; Justice Anjana Prakash, former Judge of the Patna High Court; Prof. Mohan Gopal, former Director of the National Judicial Academy; senior advocates Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Chander Uday Singh, Colin Gonzalves and Gopal Shankar Narayan; advocates Kamini Jaiswal, Gautam Bhatia and Shahrukh Alam.
Many others spanning the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR), the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information, the National Forum for Housing Rights, Common Cause, the National Federation of Indian Women, the National Alliance of People’s Movements, the Internet Freedom Foundation and several independent researchers, policy analysts and rights activists.
