New Delhi: For several days now, an article on how 38 Rohingya refugees have been rounded up and sent to an island in the Andamans for repatriation to Myanmar, has been doing the rounds.
On Friday, the Supreme Court called it out by observing: “Please show us the material first. We have read the story, a very beautifully crafted and drafted story. Who was watching them? Who recorded the video?… Petitioner says he was there. How did he come back?”
The SC bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh was hearing a petition seeking intervention in the matter. A larger bench of the Court had earlier refused to stay the deportation of Rohingyas.
“There is a serious dispute if they are refugees,” the bench held and also took exception to UN reports being cited, saying: “People sitting outside don’t dictate our authority and our sovereignty”.
“There is absolutely no material in support of the vague, evasive and sweeping statements made. Unless the allegations are supported with some prima facie material, it is difficult for us to sit over an order passed by a larger bench,” the bench said in its order, and posted the matter before a three-judge bench on July 31.
The bench also noted that a three-judge bench had already refused to stay their deportations on May 8 and said it did not find any material in the petition to substantiate the claims of forcible deportation.
Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Colin Gonsalves said that the were now in the “war zone”.
Expressing the court’s displeasure, Justice Kant said: “When the country is passing through such a difficult time, you come out every day with fanciful ideas. If you have some material please place it on record.”
To this, Gonsalves said there was a telephone call from those deported from Myanmar which the petitioner had recorded. Justice Kant, however, asked: “Who has verified that these calls are from Myanmar? Cyber criminals sitting in India keep calling from US, UK, Dubai numbers etc. Who has verified it?”
Gonsalves said the government can verify it.
“There is a well-known law of evidence in this country. In writ matters, of course, we have a very liberal approach. Please tell us who is telling you, from where this information has come, who will verify and who says I have personal knowledge of this?” Justice Kant wanted to know.
Gonsalves cited the case of Chakma refugees but the Court said that the Government of India had given a commitment in writing to the Court to grant them citizenship and asked if there’s any such commitment in this case.
