Français   |  

Subscribe to the whole site

Home > English > NEWS AND ANALYSIS > Indian Supreme Court Blundered in Sending the Seven Rohingya Refugees Back (…)

Indian Supreme Court Blundered in Sending the Seven Rohingya Refugees Back to Myanmar

Monday 15 October 2018, by Tapan Bose

India deported seven Rohingya asylum seekers who had entered India “illegally” in 2012 on October 5, 2018. The Indian Supreme Court allowed the deportation as the government told the Court that that Myanmar had accepted the Rohingya as their citizens and has agreed to take them back. After the genocidal attack on Rohingya in Rakhine state of Myanmar on August 2017, which triggered the massive exodus of Rohingya asylum seekers to Bangladesh, this is the first instance of deportation of Rohingya back to Myanmar.

In its affidavit to the Supreme Court on the issue of deportation of Rohingya refugees to Myanmar, the Union government said that as it was not a signatory to the Refugee Convention of 1951 or the Protocol of 1967, it was not bound by the principle of ’non-refoulement’, or not sending back refugees to a place where they face danger. It is strange that the Supreme Court accepted this argument, as the principle of non-refoulement is considered part of so-called jus cogens, which means that it is a fundamental principle of international law which is accepted by the international community of states as a norm and therefore binding on all states whether they have signed the Refugee Convention or not. In addition, India is party to major international human rights instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Constitution of India does not make any specific reference to the status of International law in its domestic legal system. It also does not obligate or authorises the judiciary to draw on International Law. However, it is relevant to note that Article 51, of Indian Constitution mandates the State to endeavour to promote international peace and security, to maintain good relations with other nations, to respect international law and to settle international dispute by peaceful means. A combined reading of Clause (c) of Article 51with Part III of the Constitution has facilitated the judiciary in developing human rights and environmental jurisprudence in India. This article has been relied upon by Indian Courts to hold that various International Covenants and treaties, particularly those to which India is a party or signatory, become part of domestic law in so far as there is no conflict between the two.

In Keshavanand Bharati vs. State of Kerala, Chief Justice Sikri had observed, “In view of Article 51 of the constitution this court must interpret language of the Constitution, if not intractable, which is after all a municipal law, in the light of United Nations Charter and the solemn declaration subscribed to by India”.

The Supreme Court’s acceptance of the argument that India is not bound to follow the principle of non-refoulement, is surprising in the light of the fact that in the past, in a number of cases Indian courts have protected the rights of refugees where there were substantial grounds that their lives would be in danger. Let me give a few examples:

  • In the cases of Louise de Readt (1991 SCC 554) and Khudiram [(1994 Supp. (1), Scc 615] the Supreme Court had held that Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which protects the life and liberty of Indian citizens is extended to all, including aliens. In 1996, the Supreme Court of India had prevented the government of the state of Arunachal Pradesh from forcibly expelling Chakma refugees (Civil WPNo.720/95 1996 (1) Supreme 295).
  • In Dr.Malvika Karlekar vs. the Union of India, Criminal 583 of 1992, in the writ petition the Supreme Court had held that the authorities should consider whether refugee status should be granted. And had directed that, “until this decision, the petitioner should not be deported.
  • In the case of U. Myat Kayew & Nayzan Vs. State of Manipur, the Guwahati High Court’s order had clearly said that “all asylum seekers who enter India (even if illegally) should be permitted to approach the office of the UNHCR to seek refugee status” (Civil Rule No.516 of 1991).
  • In Bogyi vs. Union of India, the Guwahati High Court had not only ordered the temporary release of a Burmese man from detention, but approved his stay for two months so that he could apply to the UNHCR for refugee status (Civil Rule 981 of 1989)
  • In the case of Ktaer Abbas Habib Al Qutafi vs. Union of India, the Gujurat High Court had summarised the principles that emerged from Indian judicial precedent. According to the High Court, the government was obliged to respect the international conventions and treaties although these may not be enforceable and act in conformity with these conventions and treaties. The High Court had pointed out that the principle on non-refoulement was encompassed in Article 21 of Indian Constitution, so long as it was not prejudicial to national security. (CA3433 of 1998).

There are more than 200 Rohingya asylum seekers who are languishing in jails in different states of India. The deportation of the seven Rohingya refugees as “illegal immigrants” raises the fear that the government may be planning to deport all of them. And now that the Government of India and the Government of Myanmar have started cooperating on the issue of “identifying” Rohingyas in India, and the Indian police is forcing the Rohingya to fill and sign a so-called identification form developed by Myanmar government, the likelihood of their deportation is even higher. This is deeply disturbing and reminds one of the systematic bureaucratization of the eventual extermination of the Jews, Roma and others. There are all sorts of problematic aspects of such forms and data-collection, particularly as there is enough evidence that Myanmar government has been systematically exterminating and expelling Rohingya inside that country.

One Rohingya refugee told me, "This form is similar to the form which Myanmar government is forcing Rohingya inside Myanmar to fill up. We call it national verification form NVC. Myanmar has classified Rohingya as foreigners erasing their history, identities and existence". The national verification card, which is what the Myanmar government is prepared to give the Rohingya — and even this is not for all Rohingya — is not a grant of citizenship. The Rohingya refugees in India are apprehensive that the information will be used to harass their relatives who are still living inside Myanmar. They will be classified as "foreigners" living in Myanmar illegally. Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh have refused to fill and sign similar forms on the ground that these forms are not for the purpose of restoration of their citizenship. Government of India’s decision to force the Rohingya refugees in India to sign this form needs to be challenged and exposed for its complicity with Myanmar.