The court dismissed a petition on Rohingya deportations as lacking evidence, calling it a “beautifully crafted story,” and tagged it with related cases.
The Supreme Court on Friday called a petition alleging that 43 Rohingya refugees were forcibly deported from India and abandoned in international waters was a “beautifully crafted story” that lacked material evidence.
A bench of justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh was hearing a plea filed by two Rohingya refugees who sought the court’s intervention alleging that others in their community had been detained by police under the pretext of biometric data collection and later deported via Port Blair after being blindfolded and restrained aboard naval ships.
The bench, however, declined to pass any interim orders as the petition lacked material evidence to support its “vague, evasive and sweeping statements”.
“Every time, you have a new story. Now (where) is this beautifully crafted story coming from? …Who was clicking the videos and photos? How did he come back? What is the material on record?” justice Kant asked.
“When the country is going through such a tough time, you bring up these fanciful petitions,” he added.
Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for the petitioners, informed the court that the United Nations Human Rights Office has also taken cognisance of the allegations and initiated an inquiry. “Time is against us. Please hear this next week. The UN report says they were picked up and sent,” he said.
When Gonsalves offered to place relevant reports and a tape recording, allegedly from “Myanmar shores”, on record, the Court said while nothing barred a lawyer from placing such material on record, one must keep in mind that “foreign reports cannot override Indian sovereignty”.
Justice Kant then pointed out that a similar issue was raised earlier before a three-judge bench comprising the two judges hearing this case and justice Dipankar Datta, while it was hearing other matters concerning Rohingya refugees.
“We were sitting in three-judge bench composition… stay was declined on same matter and now you are before us here on the basis of same material,” justice Kant said.
