Supreme Court and Rohingyas: Should We Roll Out a Red Carpet?

(INDIA) The Supreme Court of India on December 2, 2025, sharply questioned the legal status of Rohingya refugees in the country, asking whether India was expected to “roll out a red carpet for intruders” while hearing a habeas corpus petition about their alleged custodial disappearance. A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, sitting with Justice Joymalya Bagchi, made the remarks as it examined a plea filed by rights activist Rita Manchanda, who claimed several Rohingya individuals had gone missing after being detained by authorities.

Core legal question: Are Rohingyas refugees under Indian law?

During the hearing, the bench focused first on how the Indian state legally views Rohingyas. The judges asked whether the Government of India had ever issued any order declaring Rohingyas as refugees.

They emphasised that “refugee” is not a loose label but a specific legal category, with a prescribed authority empowered to recognise someone as a refugee. In the absence of such an order, the court said, those who crossed into India from Myanmar without valid documents would be treated as illegal entrants under Indian law.

This framing set the stage for the bench’s most pointed remarks about border security and state policy.

“If they do not have legal status to stay in India, and you are an intruder, we have a very sensitive border on the north India side. If an intruder comes, do we give them a red carpet welcome, saying we would like to give you all facilities?”
— Chief Justice Surya Kant

He followed with the blunt question: “What is the problem in sending them back?”

Due process and prohibition of torture

Although the court questioned legal status and deportation, it drew a clear line against physical abuse or secret detention.

• The bench said that even if Rohingyas are classified as illegal entrants, they cannot be subjected to “third‑degree methods” (a term used in India for torture or extreme coercion in custody).
• Counsel for Rita Manchanda clarified that the habeas corpus petition was not seeking a declaration that Rohingyas are refugees. Rather, the plea sought assurances that any deportation or removal would follow due process:
  • Clear legal steps,
  • Transparency about where detainees are taken,
  • Access to legal remedies.

Their lawyers argued that, even if the state plans deportation, it must disclose where detainees are held, produce them before a magistrate or court, and allow contact with family and counsel.

Broader policy and resource questions

The judges expanded the discussion to broader policy concerns, noting:

• India has many poor citizens entitled to government support and basic amenities.
• The state must prioritise “our own people” before extending resources to those who entered without permission.

These comments echoed long‑standing arguments by Indian officials that limited welfare budgets and development needs constrain large‑scale protection for Rohingya refugees, despite international concerns about abuses they face in Myanmar.

Legal issues the court will study further

The bench listed several legal questions it plans to examine before issuing any final directions:

1. Can Rohingyas in India claim a right to be declared refugees at all?
2. If classified as foreigners, what protections and privileges (if any) do they receive?
3. How far do the government’s deportation powers reach?
4. What are the limits on detention for those labelled as illegal entrants?
   • Can they be held indefinitely?
   • Or must they be released on bail or conditional release after a certain period if deportation does not take place?

The court adjourned the matter to December 16, 2025, giving the Union government more time to respond and the petitioner to place additional material on record. The next hearing is expected to bring more detailed arguments on constitutional rights and India’s obligations under international law — even though India is not bound by the main UN refugee treaty.

Numbers and living conditions

Home ministry estimates suggest there are about 40,000 Rohingya Muslims living in India as undocumented refugees, of whom roughly 10,000 are in Jammu and Kashmir, with the rest scattered across Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan, and other states.

Many Rohingya live in informal settlements on city edges, working as:

• Daily wage labourers
• Ragpickers
• Domestic workers

They often lack legal work authorisation and face frequent police raids, repeated document checks, and fear of sudden deportation. Several high‑profile removals to Myanmar were reported in recent years.

Table: Key figures

The immediate case: disappeared detainees

For the individuals named in Rita Manchanda’s habeas corpus petition, the stakes are immediate and personal.

• Families say relatives were taken from local jails or detention centres for “processing,” then vanished from official records.
• Petitioners’ lawyers insist the state must:
  • Disclose detainees’ locations,
  • Produce them before a court,
  • Allow family and legal access.

The Supreme Court’s insistence on avoiding third‑degree methods and ensuring due process provides some hope, but until clearer rules are set, many families remain in the dark.

Positions of rights groups and the government

• Amnesty International has urged New Delhi to:
  • Halt all deportations of Rohingya refugees,
  • Formally recognise them as refugees deserving protection and dignity.
  • The organisation warns that returning Rohingyas to Myanmar could expose them to serious harm, and urges India to follow broader international human rights standards even though it hasn’t signed the 1951 UN Refugee Convention.
• The Indian government’s position:
  • It does not accept UNHCR cards issued to Rohingyas as proof of special status.
  • India is not a party to the 1951 Convention or its 1967 Protocol.
  • Rohingyas fall under the Foreigners Act, which treats non‑citizens lacking valid documents as foreigners who may be detained and deported.

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, this approach lets the government treat Rohingyas within the same legal framework used for other undocumented migrants, without creating a separate national refugee law.

Potential implications and next steps

Legal experts note the bench’s strong language about “intruders” and the red carpet metaphor suggests the court may not favour blanket protection for all Rohingya in India.

At the same time, by raising questions about detention limits, bail, and minimum rights for those facing deportation, the judges signalled that the state cannot operate entirely without checks.

• The outcome could shape India’s handling of Rohingyas and other groups crossing borders without permission.
• The next hearing on December 16, 2025 will likely involve deeper arguments on constitutional protections, detention policy, and international norms.

For now, Rohingya communities, rights groups, and government agencies await further arguments. Any final ruling must balance:

• Border control,
• Domestic politics,
• Humanitarian concerns,
• India’s constitutional framework.

Official information on India’s immigration and foreigner rules remains available on the Ministry of Home Affairs website: https://www.mha.gov.in/. The Supreme Court’s final word in this case will determine how those rules apply to one of the world’s most vulnerable displaced populations.