Supreme Court puts governments Rohingya deportation on hold

October 13, 2017, 11:08 pm
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday sounded a warning to all the states with regards to the stance adopted against Rohingyas in India and has also asked them to proceed with caution, citing the presence of women and children among the refugee groups that have settled in the country.
 
Explaining the sensitivity of the issue, Supreme Court said, 'We have to strike a balance. It is not an ordinary case. The issue involves human rights of many." 
During the hearing, it also observed that no Rohingya refugees should be deported until the next date of hearing in the case. It granted more time to all the parties to argue and posted the matter for further hearing on November 21. 
 
The top court further elucidated that national security is an important issue and cannot be secondary, but at the same time, human rights of Rohingyas should be kept in mind.
 
"If you (Centre) take any kind of contingency plan, you need to inform this court," the  court said.
 
Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, arguing on behalf of the Centre, told the 3-judge bench of SC "this is an issue involving international ramifications"
Earlier in the day, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath directed the state police to identify, verify and deport any 'foreign nationals' living in the state without a proper documentation.
 
"A statewide survey of foreign nationals, who are staying illegally in the state should be conducted, and they should be sent out," an official Uttar Pradesh government statement quoted Adityanath as saying.
 
On September 18, the Centre told the Supreme Court in an affidavit that they are barring the entry of illegal Rohingyas in the country as they pose a threat to the nation's security. They said that some of the Rohingya leaders have links with Pakistan-based terrorist groups as well as the ISI and Islamic State.
 
The Centre also told the court that deporting Rohingya refugees would be an "executive policy decision" and the judiciary should desist from interfering in the matter.
 

About Author