We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
"Where is the order of the Government of India declaring them (Rohingyas) as refugees? Refugee is a well defined legal term and there is a prescribed authority by the Government to declare them. If there is no legal status of a refugee, and somebody is an intruder, and he enters illegally, do we have an obligation to keep that fellow here?" remarked the CJI.
Taking objection these remarks, particularly the equation of Rohingya refugees to “illegal intruders digging tunnels” to enter India, the former judges have written to CJI Kant, stating,
“The remarks from the bench are contrary to core constitutional values. They have had the effect of dehumanizing Rohingya refugees whose equal humanity and equal human rights are protected by the Constitution, our laws and by international law.”
Objection has been taken particularly to the bench's reported statements questioning the legal status of the Rohingya as refugees, equating them with intruders illegally entering India, the references to persons who dig tunnels to enter illegally, the questioning whether such entrants are entitled to food, shelter and education, the invocation of domestic poverty as a reason to deny basic constitutionally guaranteed entitlements to refugees and the suggestion that they be spared third degree measures, in their treatment in India.
https://x.com/LiveLawIndia/status/1996885548103762314
https://www.livelaw.in/amp/top-stories/supreme-court-former-judges-advocates-cjar-open-letter-to-cji-surya-kant-over-unconscionable-remarks-on-rohingya-refugees-312375