New Delhi: A group of 44 former judges from the Supreme Court and various high courts on Wednesday expressed strong disapproval over what they described as a “motivated campaign” targeting Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant for his recent remarks concerning Rohingya refugees. In a statement titled “Disparagement of the Supreme Court is Unacceptable”, the former judges criticised attempts to politicise the judiciary and undermine the credibility of constitutional institutions.

According to the statement, the criticism directed at the CJI went beyond legitimate debate or principled disagreement and amounted to an effort to malign the judiciary. The former judges stressed that judicial proceedings should only be subject to fair, reasoned, and informed criticism, warning against efforts to mischaracterise routine courtroom discussions as expressions of prejudice or political bias.

“What we are witnessing, however, is not principled disagreement but an attempt to de-legitimise the judiciary by mis-characterising a routine courtroom proceeding as an act of prejudice,” the statement said. The retired judges noted that the Chief Justice’s questions were part of routine legal scrutiny, aimed at clarifying procedural and statutory thresholds, rather than expressing personal opinions or policy positions.

The controversy arose during a hearing on December 2, when a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by rights activist Rita Manchanda. The petition alleged the disappearance of certain Rohingya refugees from government custody. During the proceedings, the CJI had asked: “If they do not have legal status to stay in India, and you are an intruder, we have a very sensitive border in the north India side. If an intruder comes, do we give them a red carpet welcome saying we would like to give you all facilities? What is the problem in sending them back?”

The remarks led to widespread criticism, with some voices in the media and civil society accusing the CJI of expressing prejudice against the Rohingya community. However, the former judges argued that such criticisms omitted key portions of the bench’s observations, which clarified that no individual on Indian soil—citizen or foreign national—can be subjected to torture, enforced disappearance, or any inhuman or degrading treatment.

“No adjudication on rights or entitlements can proceed unless this threshold is first addressed,” the statement said, emphasising that the Chief Justice’s questions were intended to clarify legal status and procedural context, which is a fundamental aspect of judicial inquiry.

The former judges also warned against the dangers of personalising criticism of judicial officers, noting that attacks on the CJI could erode public confidence in the judiciary’s independence. “We therefore affirm our full confidence in the Supreme Court and in the CJI, condemn motivated attempts to distort the court’s remarks, and caution against turning legitimate legal queries into personalised attacks on individual judges,” the statement said.

In addition, the statement expressed support for a court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the illegal procurement of Indian identity and welfare documents by foreign nationals who have entered India in violation of law. The former judges stressed that such measures would safeguard the integrity of the legal system while ensuring compliance with the law.

The episode highlights the ongoing debate in India over the legal and humanitarian status of Rohingya refugees. While India has historically provided refuge to persecuted communities, the government has also maintained that national security and immigration laws must be upheld, particularly for individuals without legal documentation. The bench’s questions were aimed at balancing humanitarian obligations with legal compliance, a task intrinsic to judicial review in complex cases involving foreign nationals.

Legal experts note that the controversy reflects broader challenges faced by the judiciary when dealing with sensitive issues involving migration, refugees, and border security. “Judges are often caught between humanitarian concerns and statutory frameworks. Misinterpreting procedural questions as prejudiced remarks can undermine public trust in judicial independence,” said a former Supreme Court advocate who requested anonymity.

The statement by former judges comes amid an environment where the judiciary is increasingly under scrutiny for its handling of politically sensitive and socially charged cases. By defending the Chief Justice’s conduct, the retired jurists sought to reassert the principle of judicial impartiality, reinforcing that courtroom queries, procedural clarifications, and threshold legal questions should not be conflated with personal bias or policy advocacy.

CJI Surya Kant, appointed to the Supreme Court in 2017 and elevated to the post of Chief Justice this year, has handled multiple high-profile cases related to national security, citizenship, and refugee law. Observers say the criticism against him in this instance underscores the complexity of adjudicating cases at the intersection of law, human rights, and national security, where every remark is closely scrutinised in the public domain.

The former judges’ statement ultimately positions the judiciary as a neutral arbiter, committed to legal process and constitutional mandates, while rejecting attempts to politicise or personalise judicial commentary. They underscored that protecting the judiciary’s independence is essential for maintaining the rule of law and public confidence in democratic institutions.

In conclusion, the group of 44 retired judges called for reasoned and principled engagement with the judiciary, cautioning that misrepresenting routine courtroom proceedings as politically motivated acts can have long-term consequences for both public trust and the integrity of the legal system. By defending CJI Surya Kant, the former jurists reaffirmed the primacy of due process, legal clarity, and judicial independence in the face of politically charged debates surrounding refugee and immigration issues in India.