“Weakens the moral authority of the judiciary:” Former judges, senior lawyers, academics push back against CJI Surya Kant’s comments on Rohingya refugees

ON DECEMBER 5, 2025 various former judges, senior advocates, legal scholars, activists and members of the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (‘CJAR’) authored an open letter addressed to the Chief Justice of India (‘CJI’) expressing deep disquiet regarding statements that appeared to equate Rohingyas, victims of genocide, with criminals who tunnel into a country.  

Earlier on December 2, a bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard a habeas corpus petition filed by scholar and human rights activist Dr. Rita Manchanda concerning the alleged custodial disappearance of Rohingya persons. During the hearing, the CJI raised pointed questions about the presence of Rohingya persons in India. He asked, “If an intruder comes, do we give them a red carpet welcome saying we would like to give you all facilities?". CJI Kant suggested that there was no clear problem in returning such individuals to their country of origin. 

"First you enter, you cross the border illegally. You dug a tunnel or cross the fence and enter India illegally,” the CJI observed, “Then you say, now that I have entered, your laws must apply to me and say, I am entitled to food, I am entitled to shelter, my children are entitled to education. Do we want to stretch the law like this?"

These remarks triggered widespread concern within the legal community. The signatories of the open letter, which included the likes of the former High Court judges Justices A.P. Shah, K. Chandru and Anjana Prakash, noted that “invoking the plight of the poor in India to justify denying protections to refugees sets a dangerous precedent, being contrary to the principles of constitutional justice.” They cautioned that this style of reasoning erases the lived reality of a community that the United Nations has called the most persecuted minority in the world. The letter also sought to remind the CJI that, “Refugee status determination is declaratory in nature: a person does not become a refugee because of recognition, but is recognised because he or she is a refugee.”

India’s own Standard Operating Procedure acknowledges the criteria for refugee status, the letter stated. Indian courts have read the principle of non refoulement into Article 21 and the country has hosted Tibetans, Sri Lankan Tamils and millions who crossed into India during the 1971 crisis. 

Comments signal a deferring to executive’s position on Rohingya refugees

It is true that judicial remarks do not operate in isolation. They influence police stations, border check posts, detention centres and lower courts. In August 2022, the Ministry of Home Affairs mandated that ‘illegal foreigners’ be held in detention centres until deportation and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees has noted that there are already 676 Rohingyas in detention as of late 2024, 608 of whom have no current court case or sentences pending. 

In the light of such statements by the highest judicial authority, those in positions of power feel further licensed to act with suspicion rather than care which could further affect daily life in camps where the Rohingya struggle to access sanitation, drinking water and education. The open letter warns that public faith in the judiciary weakens when the most vulnerable lose even the assurance of empathy.