Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Mohammad Salimullah v Union of India balances legal, humanitarian concerns over Rohingya deportation.
The Supreme Court of India has recently delivered a landmark ruling in the case of Mohammad Salimullah v Union of India, addressing the controversial and sensitive issue of Rohingya deportation. This verdict has significant implications for the treatment of refugees, human rights norms, and national security policies in India.
The Rohingya are a Muslim minority group from Myanmar’s Rakhine State who have faced decades of persecution, culminating in widespread violence and forced displacement in 2017. Thousands fled to neighbouring countries, including India, seeking asylum and safety. The Indian government has, however, maintained a firm stance against granting refugee status to Rohingya, citing national security concerns and the absence of formal refugee recognition under Indian law.
In 2017, petitioner Mohammad Salimullah, representing Rohingya refugees, challenged the government’s attempts to deport these individuals, arguing that forced deportation violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution, particularly the right to life and protection from arbitrary expulsion. The petition also highlighted India’s obligations under international law, such as the principle of non-refoulement embedded in the 1951 Refugee Convention, which India has not formally ratified but is considered part of customary international law.
The Supreme Court’s ruling carefully navigates this complex terrain. While upholding the government’s authority to regulate immigration and maintain national security, the court emphasized the necessity of balancing these concerns with humanitarian principles. It ruled that deportation orders should not be executed arbitrarily or en masse; instead, each case requires an individual assessment respecting due process and fair treatment. The court underscored that vulnerable individuals must not be returned to countries where their life or liberty would be threatened.
Legal experts have lauded this judgment for its nuanced approach. According to Professor Arvind Datar, a constitutional law expert, “The Supreme Court has taken a principled stance by recognizing the state’s security concerns but refusing to overlook the human rights dimensions that must guide any deportation policy.” This balance reflects the judiciary’s critical role in safeguarding constitutional guarantees, even amidst complex security challenges.
The ruling also responds to repeated concerns raised by international bodies. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has repeatedly urged India to adopt clear refugee protection mechanisms. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have documented the precarious conditions faced by Rohingya refugees in India, calling for humane policies and legal safeguards against forced return to Myanmar, where persecution continues.
Indian civil society groups such as the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) have welcomed the court’s decision as a reaffirmation of India’s democratic and constitutional values. They emphasize that the ruling sets a precedent requiring the government to treat refugees with dignity and legal fairness.
However, the government faces challenges in implementing the court’s directives. Concerns about illegal migration, national security threats, and socio-political backlash complicate policy formulation. The ruling calls for transparent, lawful procedures, including timely hearings and legal representation for those facing deportation.
The background to this case includes several previous orders and petitions filed since the 1990s, as the Rohingya presence in India grew. Earlier directives from the Supreme Court and the National Human Rights Commission urged careful consideration of refugee rights, but often enforcement was inconsistent. This recent ruling attempts to consolidate legal standards and provide clearer guidance.
For readers interested in deeper analysis of the case and its wider implications on refugee law and human rights in India, visit The Legal Observer’s National News and Views/Insight sections. The publication also features interviews with legal experts and human rights advocates who shed light on the challenges of balancing security and humanitarian commitments.
To complement this coverage, The Legal Observer’s YouTube channel offers detailed video discussions and expert panels exploring refugee law, constitutional rights, and human rights jurisprudence.
