44 former HC and SC judges issue statement objecting to 'motivated campaign' against CJI Kant's remarks on Rohingyas

New Delhi: Forty-four former judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts have denounced what they called a "motivated campaign" against Chief Justice of India Surya Kant over his remarks in the Rohingya migrant case, asserting that critics have distorted a routine legal query into allegations of prejudice, the statement said. The signatories said that attempts to misrepresent routine judicial questions as prejudiced remarks were aimed at undermining the judiciary and eroding public trust in constitutional institutions. The former judges noted that while judicial decisions and courtroom exchanges can indeed be subject to fair and informed critique, the current controversy crosses that boundary. "Judicial proceedings can and should be subject to fair, reasoned criticism. What we are witnessing, however, is not principled disagreement but an attempt to delegitimize the Judiciary by mischaracterizing a routine courtroom proceedings as an act of prejudice. The Chief Justice is being attacked for asking the most basic legal question: who, in law, has granted the status that is being claimed before the Court? No adjudication on rights or entitlements can proceed unless this threshold is first addressed," the statement said.

The former judges said critics misrepresented the Court, ignoring its message of dignity and protection for everyone. "Equally, the campaign conveniently omits the Bench's clear affirmation that no human being on Indian soil, citizen or foreigner, can be subjected to torture, disappearance or inhuman treatment, and that every person's dignity must be respected. To suppress this and then accuse the Court of "dehumanisation" is a serious distortion of what was actually said," the statement added. Reiterating legal and factual clarity, the signatories underlined that the Rohingya community in India has not entered through any statutory refugee-protection mechanism, as the country is not a party to the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol. "Rohingya have not come to India as refugees under Indian law. They have not been admitted through any statutory refugee-protection framework. Their entry, in most cases, is irregular or illegal, and they cannot unilaterally convert that position into a legally recognised "refugee" status merely by assertion. India is neither a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention of 1951 nor its 1967 Protocol," the statement added. Consequently, they argued, individuals who entered the country irregularly cannot self-declare any form of formal refugee status. "Bharat's obligations towards those who enter its territory arise from its own Constitution, its domestic laws on foreigners and immigration, and general human rights norms, not from a treaty regime we have consciously chosen not to join," the statement read. The statement further flagged concerns regarding the illegal procurement of Aadhaar cards, ration cards and other welfare-linked documents by individuals who entered the country unlawfully. "There is a serious and legitimate concern as to how persons who entered India illegally have obtained Aadhaar cards, ration cards and other Indian documentation. These instruments are meant for citizens or lawfully resident persons. Their misuse corrodes the integrity of our identification and welfare systems and raises grave questions about collusion, document fraud and organised networks." Retired judges support a court-monitored SIT probing illegal documentation and trafficking networks. "In these circumstances, it is both necessary and appropriate that a Court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT) be considered. Such an SIT should inquire into the manner in which illegal entrants obtained Aadhaar, ration cards and other identity or welfare documents, identify the officials and intermediaries involved, and expose any trafficking or security-linked networks that may be exploiting humanitarian concerns"

The Rohingya situation in Myanmar is complex, the statement says, requiring India's clear legal approach. "The situation of the Rohingya in Myanmar itself is complex and cannot be brushed aside. There, too, they have long been treated as illegal migrants originating from Bangladesh, with contested or denied citizenship. This background only reinforces the need for Indian courts to proceed on clear legal categories, not slogans or political labels. Against this backdrop, the judiciary's intervention has been firmly within constitutional bounds and directed towards protecting the country's integrity while upholding basic human dignity," read the statement. The judgment balances legality and security with rejection of torture and inhuman treatment. "To convert such a constitutionally compliant approach into a charge of inhumanity is unfair to the Chief Justice and damaging to the institution. If every searching judicial question on nationality, migration, documentation or border security is met with accusations of hate or prejudice, judicial independence itself will be at risk." The statement pointed out that Bharat's constitutional order demands both humanity and vigilance. In upholding human dignity while safeguarding national integrity, the judiciary has acted in accordance with its oath. It merits principled support, not vilification.