Disparagement Of Supreme Court Unacceptable: 44 Retired Judges Defend CJI Over His Remarks In Rohingya Case
The former Judges have sought a Court-monitored SIT into illegal procurement of Indian identity by illegal immigrants.
A group of retired judges has issued a strong statement defending the Chief Justice of India (CJI) after criticism arose over his remarks in a case involving Rohingya migrants. The statement, dated December 9, 2025, says that the attacks on the CJI are part of a “motivated campaign” and not fair criticism.
The letter was signed by a total of 44 signatories consisting of 2 former Supreme Court Judges, 6 former High Court Chief Justices, and 36 retired High Court Judges.
Earlier, a group of retired judges and Advocates had written to the CJI, objecting to his remarks while hearing a case pertaining to Rohingya migrants.
Last week, while hearing a matter, the CJI had orally termed Rohingyas as "intruders" and had said that they can't demand "red carpet" after entering India illegally.
The former judges said what is happening is “not principled disagreement but an attempt to delegitimize the Judiciary by mischaracterizing a routine courtroom proceeding as an act of prejudice.”
They pointed out that the CJI had only asked a basic legal question during the hearing: “who, in law, has granted the status that is being claimed before the Court?” They said this was a normal and necessary question for any legal proceeding.
The statement also noted that critics failed to mention that the Bench had clearly said that “no human being on Indian soil, citizen or foreigner, can be subjected to torture, disappearance or inhuman treatment.” According to the judges, ignoring this and accusing the Court of “dehumanisation” is a “serious distortion.”
The document lists several legal and factual positions:
- Rohingya do not have refugee status under Indian law. The judges wrote that they entered India irregularly and “cannot unilaterally convert that position into a legally recognised ‘refugee’ status merely by assertion.”
- India is not part of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol. The statement says India’s obligations arise from its own Constitution and laws, not from treaties it has not signed.
- The judges raised concerns about how illegal entrants obtained Indian documents such as Aadhaar and ration cards, warning that their misuse “corrodes the integrity of our identification and welfare systems.”
- They supported the idea of a Court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate how these documents were obtained and whether any officials or networks were involved.
- They noted that the Rohingya’s status in Myanmar is also disputed, stating that this background “reinforces the need for Indian courts to proceed on clear legal categories, not slogans or political labels.”
They added, “Against this backdrop, the judiciary's intervention has been firmly within constitutional bounds and directed towards protecting the country's integrity while upholding basic human dignity.”
Defending the Supreme Court, the judges said the Court’s approach balanced national security with human dignity: “The judgment and observations under attack reflect this balance with insistence on legality and national security on the one hand, and unequivocal rejection of torture, disappearance and inhuman treatment on the other.”
They warned that targeting judges personally is harmful: “If every searching judicial question on nationality, migration, documentation or border security is met with accusations of hate or prejudice, judicial independence itself will be at risk.”
Justice Anil Dave and Justice Hemant Gupta are the two former Judges of the Supreme Court who are signatories to the statement.
The letter concluded, “We therefore:
• Affirm our full confidence in the Supreme Court of India and in the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India in their discharge of constitutional duties without fear or favour;
• Condemn motivated attempts to distort the Court's remarks and personalise disagreement into attacks on individual judges; and
Support consideration of a Court-monitored SIT into the illegal procurement of Indian identity and welfare documents by foreign nationals who have entered Bharat in violation of law.”
The letter ended by stating that, “Bharat's constitutional order demands both humanity and vigilance. In upholding human dignity while safeguarding national integrity, the judiciary has acted in accordance with its oath. It merits principled support, not vilification.”
