The key reforms include the extension of the Pro Tem Security Certification Scheme for original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) for two years and reduced fees for Telecom Security Testing Laboratories (TSTLs), the Union Minister of Communications Jyotiraditya Scindia added
44 retired judges slam ‘motivated campaign’ against CJI over remarks on Rohingyas
44 retired judges slam ‘motivated campaign’ against CJI over remarks on Rohingyas
Forty-four former judges of the Supreme Court and various High Courts have condemned what they described as a “motivated campaign” against the Chief Justice of India (CJI), following his remarks during proceedings on Rohingya migrants.
In an open letter, the judges said the “disparagement” of the Supreme Court was unacceptable. “We the undersigned retired judges express our strong objection to the motivated campaign targeting the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India in the wake of his remarks in proceedings concerning Rohingya migrants,” the letter said.
The signatories said judicial proceedings can and should be subject to fair, reasoned criticism. However, they said, the campaign was not about principled disagreement, but an attempt to undermine the judiciary by portraying routine courtroom questions as prejudice.
The letter added: “The Chief Justice is being attacked for asking the most basic legal question: who, in law, has granted the status that is being claimed before the Court?”
They said no adjudication on rights or entitlements can proceed until this basic threshold is addressed.
The judges noted that the Bench had also clearly affirmed that “no human being on Indian soil, citizen or foreigner, can be subjected to torture, disappearance or inhuman treatment, and that every person's dignity must be respected.” The letter said to suppress this affirmation and then accuse the Court of “dehumanisation” constituted a serious distortion of what was actually said.
On legal status, the former judges pointed out that the Rohingyas have not entered the country under any statutory refugee-protection framework; in most cases their entry is “irregular or illegal”.
The letter said they cannot convert that position into a legally recognised “refugee” status merely by assertion. India, they noted, is neither a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention nor its 1967 Protocol. The country's obligations arise from its Constitution, domestic immigration laws, and general human-rights norms, not from any treaty it consciously chose not to join, they said.
The letter raised a “serious and legitimate concern” over reports that Rohingyas have obtained Indian identities and welfare documentations, such as Aadhaar cards and ration cards. Such misuse, the judges warned, undermines the integrity of India's identification and welfare systems.
They advocated that a court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT) could be considered to investigate the lapses, identify those responsible, and expose any organised trafficking operations.
While acknowledging the complex situation of the Rohingyas in Myanmar, where they have often been treated as illegal migrants with disputed citizenship, the retired judges stressed the need for Indian courts to proceed on clear legal categories, not slogans or political labels.
Against this backdrop, they said, the judiciary's intervention was within constitutional bounds and balanced national security with the obligation to uphold human dignity.
The signatories cautioned that if every probing judicial question on nationality, migration, documentation, or border security is met with accusations of hate or prejudice, judicial independence itself will be at risk.
They expressed full confidence in the Supreme Court and the CJI to perform their constitutional duties without fear or favour. The letter concluded by supporting the idea of a court-monitored SIT “to inquire into the illegal procurement of Indian identity and welfare documents by foreigners lacking lawful status”.
“Bharat's constitutional order demands both humanity and vigilance,” said the letter.
Among the signatories are former Supreme Court judges Anil Dave and Hemant Gupta, former Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court Anil Deo Singh, and former Chief Justice of J&K and Delhi High Court B.C. Patel.
Published - December 10, 2025 02:38 pm IST
Source: TheHindu
Related Posts: Supreme Court wants High Court Judges Supreme Court directs courts to decide bail pleas within two months Supreme Court Recruitment Notification Out For Various Posts Can share CCTV data only with high courts ICC judges find former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte fit to stand trial How the 'world's best bread' travelled from Islamic courts to our plates How the 'world's best bread' travelled from Islamic courts to our plates Bomb Alert! Several Courts In Odisha Receive Threat Via Email Sinner reacts as Federer accuses chiefs of rigging courts for Alcaraz finals Courts will lean toward animals who are silent victims of commercial ventures
The key reforms include the extension of the Pro Tem Security Certification Scheme for original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) for two years and reduced fees for Telecom Security Testing Laboratories (TSTLs), the Union Minister of Communications Jyotiraditya Scindia added
2 months ago
