44 Retired Judges Back CJI Surya Kant, Denounce ‘Motivated’ Criticism Over Rohingya Remarks

Forty-four former judges, including retired Supreme Court and High Court judges, have issued a strong statement defending Chief Justice of India Surya Kant amid what they describe as a "motivated campaign" against him over his recent remarks on Rohingya refugees. The group denounced the criticisms as an attempt to malign the judiciary and wrongly attribute political motives to the Chief Justice's comments made during a court hearing.

In a statement titled "Disparagement of the Supreme Court is Unacceptable", the retired judges said the ongoing backlash represents a deliberate effort to distort facts and misrepresent the judiciary's role. They stressed that while fair and reasoned criticism of judicial proceedings is always welcome, the current campaign had crossed acceptable limits by twisting the intent behind the CJI's observations.

The statement explained that CJI Surya Kant was merely raising a legal question during the hearing-specifically, who had granted the status being claimed before the Court regarding the Rohingya refugees. According to the retired judges, no judicial determination of rights can move forward without addressing this core legal issue.

Clarifying the Court's position on human rights

The former judges noted that critics had selectively omitted a significant part of the Bench's comments. They pointed out that the Bench explicitly stated that no human being-whether an Indian citizen or a foreign national-can be subjected to torture, disappearance, or inhuman treatment.

The judges also reiterated that Rohingya migrants in India are not covered under any statutory refugee protection framework, given that India is not a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol. They emphasised that the rights and responsibilities of foreign nationals are instead governed by India's Constitution, domestic immigration laws, and general human rights principles.

Warning against undermining judicial scrutiny

The retired judges cautioned that turning constitutionally grounded judicial examination into allegations of prejudice or bias threatens the independence of the judiciary. They argued that if probing questions relating to nationality, migration, or documentation are consistently met with personal attacks, the judiciary's ability to carry out its constitutional responsibilities will be seriously weakened.