A group of 44 retired judges from the Supreme Court and various high courts has issued a forceful statement condemning what they describe as a “motivated campaign” targeting Chief Justice of India Surya Kant over his courtroom remarks in a case involving Rohingya migrants. The former jurists said critics had misrepresented routine legal questioning as prejudice, risking the independence and integrity of the judiciary.
The judges’ statement, circulated this week, took aim at an open letter issued on 5 December by a cohort of former judges, senior lawyers and civil society activists, which had expressed “deep concern” at the Chief Justice’s comments during proceedings on a habeas corpus petition alleging the custodial disappearance of Rohingya individuals.
“We the undersigned retired Judges express our strong objection to the motivated campaign targeting the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India in the wake of his remarks in proceedings concerning Rohingya migrants, including the open letter dated 5 December,” the group wrote, stressing that judicial proceedings should always be open to fair and reasoned critique but warning against mischaracterisation that undermines public confidence in the courts.
At the centre of the controversy are remarks made by the Chief Justice during a hearing on 2 December, in which he questioned whether the Government of India had legally recognised Rohingya migrants as refugees under any statutory framework. The retired judges argued that asking such foundational legal questions is integral to adjudication, and insisted the Bench had simultaneously affirmed that no person on Bharat’s soil—whether citizen or foreign national—can be subjected to torture, disappearance or inhuman treatment.
“What we are witnessing, however, is not principled disagreement but an attempt to delegitimise the judiciary by characterising a routine courtroom proceeding as an act of prejudice,” the statement said, adding that omitting the Bench’s clear protections for human dignity amounted to a “serious distortion” of the record.
The defenders of the Chief Justice invoked the constitutional role of the judiciary, asserting that a free and independent legal system must be able to pose rigorous questions on subjects such as nationality, migration, documentation and border security without being subjected to personalised attacks. They cautioned that conflating such inquiries with hostility could chill judicial scrutiny and erode the rule of law.
Signatories to the statement included a mix of former Supreme Court judges, ex-chief justices of high courts and retired high court jurists, reflecting a broad cross-section of the judicial establishment. They collectively affirmed “full confidence in the Supreme Court and in the Chief Justice of India in their discharge of constitutional duties without fear or favour,” and condemned what they termed “motivated attempts to distort the court’s remarks and personalise disagreement into attacks on individual judges.”
In addressing broader concerns raised by critics, the group of former judges underscored that Rohingya migrants have not been admitted under any statutory refugee-protection regime in Bharat, and pointed out that the country is not a party to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol. They said these legal realities reinforce the need for courts to base decisions on clear legal categories rather than slogans or political labels.
The statement further supported the consideration of a court-monitored Special Investigation Team to examine alleged illegal procurement of Indian identity and welfare documents—such as Aadhaar and ration cards—by foreign nationals who entered the country without authorisation. The retired judges said addressing such issues was consistent with upholding national integrity while ensuring respect for human dignity.
The dispute has exposed deeper fault lines within India’s legal and civil society communities. Those who authored the open letter criticised by the 44 retired judges had charged that certain comments by the Chief Justice risked dehumanising a vulnerable population and weakening the judiciary’s moral authority, arguing that refugee status determinations do not hinge solely on formal recognition.
Opponents of the former judges’ defence of the Chief Justice emphasised that the plight of the Rohingya—widely regarded internationally as one of the most persecuted minorities—requires a nuanced understanding of humanitarian protections embedded in constitutional principles such as the right to life and personal liberty. They cautioned that framing the discussion narrowly around legal technicalities could diminish the judiciary’s responsiveness to human rights considerations.
Shah hits out at Congress over voter fraud claims 