Legal Dissent Mounts Over CJI Surya Kant’s Rohingya Comment
(By Syed Ali Taher Abedi)
New Delhi, Dec 5 — In a rare and pointed intervention, a group of former judges, senior advocates, and members of the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) have written to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, objecting to remarks made by his bench during a hearing on December 2 concerning Rohingya refugees.
“As citizens committed to equity, human dignity and the moral foundations of justice, we are deeply troubled by the remarks made in the recent hearing, particularly the reported statements questioning the legal status of the Rohingya as refugees, equating them with intruders illegally entering India, the references to persons who dig tunnels to enter illegally, the questioning whether such entrants are entitled to food, shelter and education, the invocation of domestic poverty as a reason to deny basic constitutionally guaranteed entitlements to refugees and the suggestion that they be spared third degree measures, in their treatment in India!” The letter states.
The letter expresses grave constitutional concern over the bench’s reported observations, where CJI Kant questioned whether the Government of India had ever formally recognized Rohingyas as “refugees” and equated them to “illegal intruders digging tunnels to enter India.”
“The Rohingya have a qualitatively different status of being refugees, as compared to illegal immigrants. Refugee status determination is declaratory in nature: a person does not become a refugee because of recognition, but is recognized because he or she is a refugee. It follows from this and from the obligation of non-refoulment (which is a non derogable norm of customary international law) that a refugee has a right to be formally and individually determined as a refugee in order to formalize her status.”
The Objection
The signatories argue that such remarks risk undermining the constitutional ethos of India’s judiciary, which has historically stood as a bulwark for the marginalized.
“The government has issued special documentation to Tibetans and Sri Lankans, recognizing their status as refugees, and allowing them to access basic socio-economic rights.”
They highlight that the Rohingyas have been described by the United Nations as “the most persecuted community in the world.”
By equating them with unlawful infiltrators, the letter warns, the bench’s words risk dehumanizing a population fleeing genocidal persecution.
Judicial Responsibility
The letter underscores that the Chief Justice is not merely a legal functionary but “the custodian and final arbiter of the rights of the poor.” His words, the signatories caution, carry immense moral weight and reverberate across the conscience of the nation.
“Judicial authority is built on the principles of constitutional morality, compassion and protection of human dignity. When those who flee violence and persecution are dismissed with rhetoric that is hostile to their very dignity, it threatens the foundational values of our Constitution and undermines public faith in the courts as a refuge for the vulnerable.”
They argue that judicial remarks, even when made in passing, have a cascading effect: shaping public perception, influencing executive action, and either strengthening or weakening the judiciary’s moral authority.
Humanitarian Context
Former judges and advocates remind the Court that India’s constitutional framework, rooted in dignity and equality, obliges compassion toward those displaced by persecution. They stress that judicial rhetoric must reflect this humanitarian responsibility rather than reduce vulnerable communities to caricatures of illegality.
The Closing Note
The letter concludes with a solemn appeal: that the judiciary must remain the guardian of constitutional morality, ensuring that those who arrive at India’s doors seeking refuge are not stripped of their humanity by judicial pronouncements.
Following are the Signatories:
1. Justice AP Shah, former Chief Justice, Delhi High Court
2. Justice K. Chandru, Former Judge, Madras High Court
3. Justice Anjana Prakash, Former judge, Patna High Court
4. Prof. Mohan Gopal, Former Director, National Judicial Academy
5. Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court
6. Mr. Chander Uday Singh, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court
7. Mr. Colin Gonzalves, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court
8. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Advocate, Supreme Court 9. Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate, Bombay High Court
10. Mr. Gopal Shankar Narayan, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court
11. Mr. Gautam Bhatia, Advocate, High Court & Supreme Court
12. Ms. Shahrukh Alam, Advocate, High Court & Supreme Court Working Group, CJAR ● Prashant Bhushan – Advocate, Supreme Court
● Nikhil Dey – RTI Activist &Co Founder Majdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan
● Alok Prasanna Kumar – Advocate and Co-Founder, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy
● Venkatesh Sundaram – Lok Raj Sanghatan
● Indu Prakash Singh – Convenor, National Forum for Housing Rights ● Anjali Bhardwaj – Transparency Activist, Founder Satark Nagrik Sangathan and co-convenor, National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI)
● Amrita Johri – Transparency Activist and working committee member, NCPRI
● Annie Raja – National Federation of Indian Women
● Beena Pallical- Beena- National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights
● Cheryl D’souza – Advocate, Supreme Court
● Indira Unninayar – Advocate, High Court and Supreme Court
● Siddhartha Sharma – Advocate
● Devvrat – Advocate, High Court and Supreme Court
● Vijayan MJ – Policy Analyst, Independent Researcher and Writer ● Vipul Mudgal – Director, Common Cause
● Koninika Ray – National Federation of India Women
● Meera Sanghamitra – Convenor, National Alliance of People’s Movements
● Apar Gupta – Advocate & Co-Founder & Founder Director, Internet Freedom Foundation
● Anurag Tiwary – Advocate, High Court and Supreme Court
Click here to read the letter
