Over 40 Retired Judges Defend Supreme Court Chief Justice in Rohingya Remarks Controversy

Forty-four former Supreme Court and High Court judges have signed a statement. They strongly condemned a campaign targeting Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. The controversy stems from his remarks during a December 2 hearing on Rohingya migrants.The judges called the criticism a “motivated campaign.” They stated it aims to delegitimize the judiciary. The hearing involved a plea about the custodial disappearance of Rohingya refugees in India.

Judges Decry “Serious Distortion” of Court Proceedings

The statement defends the Chief Justice’s line of questioning. He asked who granted the Rohingya legal status in India. The judges argue this is a fundamental legal query for any court.They state the campaign omitted crucial context. The bench clearly affirmed that no person in India can be subjected to inhuman treatment. According to Reuters, the judges called the omission a “serious distortion” of the facts.The retired judges expressed full confidence in the Supreme Court. They warned that attacking judicial questions on national security risks judicial independence. Their statement supports considering a court-monitored investigation into how foreign nationals obtained Indian identity documents.

Broader Legal and National Integrity Concerns Raised

The statement clarifies India’s legal position on refugees. India is not a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention. The judges noted Rohingya were not admitted under any Indian statutory refugee framework.This creates legitimate concerns about national integrity. There are questions about how individuals who entered illegally procured Aadhaar and ration cards. The judiciary must balance human dignity with the duty to safeguard national laws.The situation highlights a complex constitutional challenge. The judges concluded the court has acted according to its oath. They believe it deserves principled support, not vilification.

Virginia Tech Hires Danny O’Brien as New Quarterbacks Coach

The strong defense from dozens of former judges underscores deep institutional concern. It signals a robust response to criticism of the Supreme Court’s judicial process. This clash highlights the tense balance between human rights discourse and sovereign immigration law.

A quick knowledge drop for you

What did the Chief Justice of India actually say?

During a hearing, he asked a basic legal question. He inquired about who granted the Rohingya the status they were claiming before the court. The bench also affirmed that no person on Indian soil can be subjected to torture or inhuman treatment.

Why are the retired judges getting involved?

They see the criticism as a motivated attack on judicial independence. They believe it distorts the court’s remarks and personalizes legal disagreement. Their intervention aims to defend the institution’s integrity.

What is India’s official policy on refugees?

India is not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention. It lacks a formal national refugee protection law. Cases are often handled on an ad-hoc basis or through existing general laws.

What is the core issue with Rohingya documentation?

There is a serious investigation into how some who entered illegally obtained Indian IDs. Documents like Aadhaar and ration cards are meant for citizens and residents. Their alleged procurement is a major legal and security concern.

What happens next in this legal issue?

The judges’ statement supports forming a court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT). This SIT would probe the illegal procurement of Indian identity documents. The Supreme Court will likely continue hearing the related pleas.