| CITATION | Air 2021 supreme court 1789 |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT | 8th April 2021 |
| PETITIONER | Mohammed Salimullah |
| RESPONDENT | Union of India |
| BENCH | Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice A.S Bopanna and Justice V. Rama Subramanian |
INTRODUCTION
The legal dispute of Mohammad Salimullah v Union of India focuses on a crucial issue: safeguarding the rights of refugees in India. This case highlights the interaction between India’s national security interests and its responsibilities under international human rights law, particularly in relation to the Rohingya refugee crisis.
Mohammad Salimullah, who is also a Rohingya refugee, stands for a marginalized community escaping mistreatment and human rights violations in Myanmar. Afraid of being deported from India, Salimullah turned to the Indian legal system to ask for safeguard and acknowledgment of basic rights for the Rohingya refugees staying in the nation. This scenario not just deals with the current situation of many refugees but also evaluates India’s legal system and its commitment to international agreements, like the 1951 Refugee Convention and the principle of non-refoulement.
The Union of India maintains that having Rohingya refugees in the country poses major security risks, and their ongoing presence could result in negative socio-political and economic outcomes. The government’s position is based on national security concerns and the need to uphold public order.
This case has implications that go beyond just the parties involved and touches on wider topics like international law, human rights, and national security. The result of this lawsuit has significant effects on India’s refugee policy and its global reputation in human rights matters.
FACTS OF THE CASE
- In Mohammad Salimullah v Union of India, the legal conflict arises from a urgent humanitarian situation that extends beyond country borders. The Rohingya, a minority group in Myanmar, have endured ongoing oppression and violations of their human rights, causing a large number to seek safety in nearby nations such as India.
- Mohammad Salimullah, a Rohingya who escaped to India, was the petitioner in this lawsuit, advocating for numerous refugees in similar circumstances. The chain of events that sparked the legal conflict started in August 2017 with the Myanmar military’s harsh crackdown on the Rohingya in Rakhine State, causing widespread displacement and massive migration to nations such as Bangladesh and India.
- Salimullah, along with other Rohingya refugees, sought refuge in India, thinking of it as a secure place. Yet, in August 2017, the Indian government declared plans to send all Rohingya refugees back to Myanmar due to worries about national security and possible connections to terrorism. This statement caused fear and panic in the Rohingya community in India, as they were worried about their safety if sent back to Myanmar.
- The key facts necessary for grasping the legal issues in this case are the severe human rights crisis experienced by the Rohingya in Myanmar, the deportation directive from the Indian government, and Mohammad Salimullah’s petition challenging this directive. The petition contended that expelling the individual would breach the basic entitlements safeguarded by the Indian Constitution, specifically the rights to life and personal freedom as per Article 21, along with India’s global commitments under the non-refoulement principle.
- As the case went on, it received a lot of focus from human rights groups, legal scholars, and the global community, becoming a pivotal case that would examine the delicate line between national security interests and safeguarding basic human rights.
- ISSUES RAISED
The central issue in Mohammad Salimullah v Union of India revolves around the legal protection of Rohingya refugees in India. Specifically, the case raises several critical questions:
- Whether the Government of India’s decision to deport Rohingya refugees back to Myanmar violates the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits returning refugees to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom.
- The question whether the Rohingya refugees are entitled to fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution, particularly Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), despite not being Indian citizens.
- How to balance the refugees’ rights with India’s national security considerations.
- Addressing the conflict between India’s international obligations, such as those under customary international law and non-signatory status to the 1951 Refugee Convention, and its domestic legal framework.
- The extent to which the Indian judiciary can review executive decisions on matters concerning deportation and national security, given the separation of powers and the importance of executive discretion in such matters.
These issues collectively highlight the tension between humanitarian considerations and national interests, thereby making the judicial determination in this case both complex and significant.
CONTENTIONS BY THE PETITIONER
Mohammad Salimullah, the petitioner, made multiple strong arguments against the deportation order of the Rohingya refugees. At the core of his arguments was the claim that the planned deportation would infringe upon their basic rights as outlined in the Indian Constitution, specifically the right to life and personal freedom guaranteed by Article 21. Salimullah contended that the constitutional safeguards apply to all individuals living within India’s borders, as confirmed in multiple Supreme Court rulings, such as the notable case of National Human Rights Commission v Arunachal Pradesh (1996). The person requesting stressed that sending the Rohingya refugees back to Myanmar, where they are in imminent danger of persecution, torture, and possible death, would violate the principle of non-refoulement, an important aspect of international refugee law. While India has not signed the 1951 Refugee Convention, the concept of non-refoulement is considered a fundamental part of customary international law that applies to all nations. Salimullah argued that India should conform its actions to its responsibilities under global human rights standards, as outlined in documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which India has ratified. The petitioner also emphasized the Indian judiciary’s historical commitment to safeguarding vulnerable and marginalized communities. In cases like Vishaka v State of Rajasthan (1997), he mentioned how the Court provided extensive protection using international conventions even in the absence of local laws. He contended that based on this comparison, the Rohingya refugees should receive the same safeguards provided by established fundamental rights and international law principles. Additionally, it was contended that the government’s blanket characterization of all Rohingya refugees as potential security threats was unsubstantiated and discriminatory. Salimullah argued that bona fide refugees who flee persecution should not be collectively penalized for the actions of a few individuals. He urged the Court to consider individual assessments rather than indiscriminate deportation orders. In essence, the petitioner’s arguments revolved around upholding constitutional and human rights principles, advocating for adherence to international legal standards, and calling for a humane and judicious approach to refugee protection in India.
CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENT
The Union of India gave various reasons in reply to the petition submitted by Mohammed Salimullah and other Rohingya refugees. The main points of discussion revolved around issues related to national security, procedural matters, and the understanding of international law. India’s Union claimed that the existence of Rohingya refugees brings a threat to national security. They argued that certain Rohingya refugees may have connections to extremist organizations, posing a potential threat to India’s security and stability. The Union of India stated that numerous Rohingya refugees in India lack proper legal documentation or entered the country without permission. Hence, they contended that the government possesses the power to expel them in accordance with national immigration regulations. India’s Union disputed the Supreme Court’s authority to interfere in refugee policy and deportation issues, contending that these areas are solely the responsibility of the executive branch. India contended that Rohingya refugees have other legal options, such as pursuing asylum through appropriate channels or seeking determination of refugee status.
JUDGMENT
The court confirmed that India is obligated to the principle of non-refoulement under international law, which prevents the deportation of individuals to countries where their life or freedom are at risk. The Indian government was instructed to not expel Rohingya refugees without fully evaluating their asylum requests and the potential dangers they could encounter if sent back to Myanmar.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that all individuals, regardless of citizenship or refugee status, have the right to the protection of basic rights outlined in the Indian Constitution. It particularly highlighted the rights to life and personal freedom (Article 21), equality before the law (Article 14), and protection against unjust actions (Article 19).
The verdict emphasized the significance of procedural fairness in deportation cases. It required the government to adhere to set legal procedures and allow refugees to present their case before any deportation decision is reached. Emphasizing its duty to protect constitutional rights, the court highlighted the judiciary’s power to examine executive actions that impact the rights of individuals, such as refugees. It stressed the importance of court supervision in guaranteeing that executive actions adhere to constitutional principles and international legal commitments. The court acknowledged that India has a duty under both international law and domestic constitutional law to safeguard refugee rights, while also considering national security and foreign relations.
ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court’s confirmation of the non-refoulement principle is crucial to the ruling. By acknowledging this principle as obligatory for India according to international law, the court reaffirms the dedication to avoid sending individuals back to nations where they could be subjected to persecution or severe harm. This choice brings India’s refugee policy in line with international human rights norms and shows a compassionate stance towards at-risk groups.
The ruling highlights that the basic rights promised in the Indian Constitution apply to everyone universally. By stating clearly that these rights apply to everyone in India, regardless of their nationality or legal status, the court confirms that refugees, along with others, have the right to life, personal freedom, equality, and protection from unjust actions. This confirms India’s dedication to maintaining human dignity and equality under the law as stated in the constitution.
It is essential to prioritize procedural safeguards in deportation proceedings. The court’s instruction for the government to adhere to established legal procedures and allow refugees to present their case guarantees fairness and transparency in decision-making. This necessity ensures the rights of refugees are safeguarded and enforces the rule of law by avoiding the executive branch from taking arbitrary or discriminatory actions. The court’s firm stance on judicial oversight strengthens the role of the judiciary in protecting constitutional rights and holding government actions accountable.
The decision strikes a balance between national security needs and the obligation to protect human rights. While the court acknowledges India’s legitimate concerns regarding national security and diplomatic relationships with Myanmar, it clarifies that these apprehensions should not override the responsibility to protect fundamental rights, including those of refugees. This comprehensive approach shows a deep understanding of India’s responsibilities under international laws, recognizing the difficulties of dealing with refugees in a complicated geopolitical landscape. The Mohammed Salimullah case establishes an important milestone for refugee safeguarding in India and other areas. It explains the legal structure that oversees how refugees are treated in India, giving clear guidance on how international legal principles are applied in the local legal system. The acknowledgment of non-refoulement and focus on fundamental rights and procedural fairness in the judgment sets a standard for future cases on refugee rights, impacting policy choices and legal understandings in asylum and refugee protection issues.
From a standpoint focused on helping others, the ruling confirms that India is dedicated to supporting human rights and safeguarding at-risk groups who are seeking refuge in the country. It shows a dedication to upholding the dignity, compassion, and justice of refugees escaping persecution and violence. From a legal standpoint, the ruling enhances India’s adherence to global human rights standards and underscores the judiciary’s responsibility in interpreting and enforcing these standards to safeguard people’s rights from government actions.
REFERENCES
- https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/27338/27338_2017_31_1502_27493_Judgement_08-Apr-2021.pdf
- https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.cmr.edu.in/school-of-legal-studies/journal/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/06-Critical-Analysis-of-Mohammad-Salimullah-v-Union-of-India-Has-the-Supreme-Court-of-India-acted-as-Executive.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjQhZT-_5aHAxXccGwGHQYSAA8QFnoECCsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2JUCnnNI8k9M1fwqzT0QxJ
- https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/04/08/rohingya-refugees-not-to-be-deported-unless-the-procedure-prescribed-for-such-deportation-is-followed-supreme-court/&ved=2ahUKEwiAtYiNgJeHAxXkR2wGHaeDACg4ChAWegQICxAB&usg=AOvVaw2alTnklwgjia4_GJDN7wMG
This article is written by Anushka Sharma student of the School of Legal Studies, REVA University, Bengaluru; Inter at Legal Vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
