Judges including former Supreme Court and High Court judges, have come together to strongly defend Chief Justice of India Surya Kant after what they describe as a “motivated campaign” targeting his recent remarks on Rohingya refugees. The group of 44 retired judges condemned the ongoing criticisms of CJI Surya Kant, who had made the comments during a hearing, and argued that attempts were being made to malign the judiciary and attribute political motives to his actions.
The judges emphasised that fair criticism of court proceedings is always welcome, but the ongoing campaign had crossed a line by misrepresenting the intentions behind the Chief Justice’s observations.
In a statement titled “Disparagement of the Supreme Court is Unacceptable”, the retired judges expressed concerns that the current criticism represents a deliberate effort to distort facts and misinterpret the judiciary’s role.
The statement clarified that CJI Surya Kant was simply raising a legal query during the hearing questioning who had granted the status being asserted before the Court regarding the Rohingya refugees. The retired judges argued that no judicial determination of rights can proceed without addressing this foundational legal question.
Clarifying the court’s stance on human rights
The former judges pointed out that critics of the CJI’s remarks had deliberately left out a critical part of the Bench’s observations. According to the retired judges, the Bench had clarified that no human being whether an Indian citizen or a foreign national can be subjected to torture, disappearance, or inhuman treatment.
Furthermore, the retired judges reiterated that Rohingya migrants in India do not fall under any statutory refugee protection framework, as India is not a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol. They emphasized that the rights and obligations concerning foreign nationals are determined by India’s Constitution, domestic immigration laws, and general human rights norms.
Warning against attacks on judicial scrutiny
The retired judges also cautioned that turning constitutionally grounded judicial scrutiny into allegations of bias or prejudice poses a serious threat to the judiciary’s independence. They argued that if every probing question about nationality, migration, or documentation is met with such attacks, the judiciary’s ability to fulfill its constitutional mandate would be severely undermined.
