While hearing a Habeas Corpus petition, alleging the disappearance of a few Rohingyas from the custody of authorities, Court observed that the benefits and amenities should be concentrated on citizens of the country rather than on someone who has entered illegally.
Supreme Court’s Key Observations
- On legal status of Rohingyas: Court challenged the classification of Rohingyas as refugees, emphasizing the need for an official government declaration.
- The illegal status, hence, negates legal rights within the country.
- On obligations for illegal entrants: While acknowledging a baseline Humanitarian treatment of entrants, Court expressed skepticism about non-citizens demanding legal rights after entering illegally.
- On National priorities and Security: Court emphasized the needs of India's own population over those of illegal migrants and the strategic importance of border control, particularly in the northeast.
Legal Provisions related to Refugees
- International Law: 1951 Refugee Convention: Defines the term 'refugee' and outline their rights and the international standards of treatment for their protection.
- India is not a signatory to this Convention or its 1967 Protocol.
- Customary Law: India accepts the principle of Non-Refoulement (no forced return to persecution) as a norm of customary international law.
- Domestic Laws: Refugees are governed by the Foreigners Act, 1946, Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939, Passports Act, 1967, and the Citizenship Act, 1955.
- Ad-hoc mechanism: Refugee status is granted via "strategic ambiguity" using executive/administrative channels rather than legislative ones. Management is divided:
- Union Ministry of Home Affairs: Directly manages Sri Lankan Tamils and Tibetan refugees.
- UNHCR: Manages other groups (Rohingya, Afghans, Myanmarese, African nationals).
- India granted refugee status to: Tibetan Refugees, Sri Lankan Tamil Refugees, Chakma and Hajong Refugees, etc.
