The Supreme Court of India has raised serious concerns over a petition alleging that the Indian government forcibly deported Rohingya refugees by abandoning them in international waters. A Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and NK Singh heard the plea filed by two refugees seeking judicial intervention in what they claimed was a grave human rights violation.
However, the Court made it clear that it could not proceed on the basis of unverified information. “You cannot keep collecting (information) from social media and file petitions,” Justice Kant remarked, expressing skepticism about the credibility of the sources presented. The bench questioned the origin of the alleged video and photographic evidence and sought to know who had verified the claims.
Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, representing the petitioners, argued that the information was based on phone calls received from individuals in Myanmar and news reports, including international media coverage. He stated that refugees were taken to the Andaman Islands and later left at sea with only life jackets. Gonsalves pleaded for an investigation, citing the International Court of Justice‘s position on the protected status of Rohingyas.
Despite the appeal, the Supreme Court insisted on the need for credible evidence. “Unless someone has personally seen it, how can you vouch for it? Place these reports on record. We will examine them,” the bench said. It also cautioned against “forum shopping,” noting that similar issues had already been reviewed by a three-judge bench, including Justice Dipankar Datta.
The Court expressed concern that the petition was filled with “vague, evasive and sweeping statements” lacking substantiating material. Emphasizing the gravity of the situation and the need for due process, the judges reiterated that they could not override a prior interim order from a larger bench without substantive evidence.
As the hearing concluded, Gonsalves urged the Court to consider a UN report that also documented the alleged deportation. Justice Kant firmly responded, “We will give a report to the UN when the time is correct,” before refusing the requested direction for protection.
The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on May 31, now reassigned to the earlier three-judge bench for comprehensive review.
