On April 8, the Supreme Court of India issued an order, allowing the deportation of Rohingyas from Indian territory. While making its case...
On April 8, the Supreme Court of India issued an order, allowing the deportation of Rohingyas from Indian territory. While making its case before the court, the government of India had argued that the Rohingyas were illegal migrants who had crossed the border, and though they enjoyed equal protection of law and the right to life, their right to movement was essentially attached to their ability to demonstrate their link with the Indian territory.
The protection of an individual within the territory of any state is based on certain legal expectations: first, that the state shall establish relevant identification criteria to grant protection to the individual; second, that this identification shall allow movement of individual within the state and across its borders; and finally, that any harm to the individual shall be addressed by the state under its domestic legal system or else through its mutual engagement with the other state, as happened in the Italian marines case recently.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on the deportation of Rohingyas fails all the expectations. Though the court agreed that the Rohingyas face a threat to life in their home country, it nevertheless decided to deport them. The Rohingyas’ right not to be deported was necessarily linked to their ability to settle and...