The Supreme Court of India has rejected a plea to halt the deportation of 43 Rohingya refugees, questioning the validity of claims that they were cast into international waters. Learn more about the court proceedings, the role of human rights advocates, and the legal arguments surrounding refugee rights in India.

Supreme Court Dismisses Petition to Halt Rohingya Deportation

On May 16, 2025, the Supreme Court of India denied a writ petition in the case of MOHAMMAD ISMAIL v. UNION OF INDIA, which claimed that 43 Rohingya refugees—including women, children, elderly individuals, and those with critical illnesses—were forcibly deported and thrown into international waters by Indian authorities.

A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh refused to grant an interim stay on further deportations. The ruling followed a similar rejection by a three-judge panel led by Justice Kant on May 8.

Supreme Court Questions Credibility of Allegations

The court dismissed the petition as lacking substantial evidence. The judges stated that the accusations were “generalized,” “vague,” and “unsupported.” The petition failed to present prima facie evidence that could justify overturning an earlier court order.

Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, representing the petitioners, urged for an urgent hearing, citing a UN Human Rights report that confirmed the deportation. However, Justice Kant questioned the reliability of the petition, calling it a “beautifully crafted story” lacking factual backing.

Evidence and Eyewitness Testimony Under Scrutiny

Justice Kant questioned the source of information, particularly how the petitioner, reportedly in Delhi, could verify the events allegedly happening in the Andaman Islands and Myanmar. Gonsalves argued that the petitioners received phone calls and recorded messages from deported individuals. The bench, however, demanded verifiable proof and insisted that only official reports or recorded testimonies would be considered credible.

UN Investigation and Sovereignty Concerns

Gonsalves informed the court that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) had taken note of the issue and initiated an investigation. The bench instructed him to submit these findings officially, while reiterating that “those sitting outside cannot challenge our sovereignty.”

Legal Precedents and Rights of Non-Citizens

Referencing the landmark case NHRC v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, Gonsalves argued that even non-citizens have the right to life and liberty under Indian law. However, the bench countered that the relief in that case was possible only because the government had agreed to consider granting citizenship to the Chakma people.

Justice Kant also emphasized the ongoing legal debate regarding the classification of the Rohingyas as legitimate refugees under Indian law.

Rohingya Crisis and International Law

Gonsalves highlighted a ruling by the International Court of Justice, which found that Rohingyas in Myanmar face the threat of genocide. Despite this, the court asked for concrete evidence that showed any new developments or alarming information gathered after the May 8 ruling.

The bench questioned the reliability of data sourced from social media and emphasized the need for verified communication with the refugee community.

Final Observations on Deportation Proceedings

The Supreme Court reiterated that if the Rohingyas have no legal right to remain in India, they must be deported in accordance with established legal procedures. This decision follows submissions from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who affirmed the Union Government’s obligation to implement prior court rulings concerning foreign nationals.

As of now, more than 8,000 Rohingya refugees reside in India with valid UNHCR documentation, while approximately 600 are located in Delhi alone.

Conclusion: A Complex Legal and Humanitarian Battle

The ongoing deportation of the Rohingya refugees highlights the complex intersection of international human rights, national sovereignty, and legal interpretation in India. While advocates like Colin Gonsalves continue to fight for refugee protection under constitutional and international law, the Supreme Court remains firm in demanding concrete, verifiable evidence to intervene.