Advocate Colin Gonsalves on Friday said that the central government had already deported a batch of Rohingya Muslims on May 8. He claimed that the deportees were handcuffed and sent off to the Andaman Islands, given life jackets and “pushed towards Myanmar”read moreThe Supreme Court rebuked petitioners for filing successive PILs to stop the deportation of Rohingya Muslims. The court told senior advocate Colin Gonsalves that “PILs after PILs cannot be filed” on the same issue unless there is some new fact backing their petitions.Earlier this month, a three-judge bench consisting of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and N Kotiswar Singh refused to grant an interim stay on the apprehended deportation of Rohingyas, saying they are not Indian citizens and hence do not have the right to reside in the country. The PILs were argued by Gonsalves and advocate Prashant Bhushan.STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS ADSolicitor General Tushar Mehta stated that India is not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention and questioned the validity of the UNHCR granting refugee status to Rohingyas. These individuals, originally from Myanmar, had fled to other countries due to severe threats to their lives from the military.More from India
No bathroom breaks, no sleep: How a BSF jawan was tortured in Pakistan custody
Shashi Tharoor, Shrikant Shinde and more: Centre names 7 MPs to lead India’s anti-terror global outreachGonsalves on Friday said that the central government had already deported a batch of Rohingya Muslims on May 8. He claimed that the deportees were handcuffed and sent off to the Andaman Islands, given life jackets and “pushed towards Myanmar”. They sought the help of fishermen after reaching the country to call their relatives in Delhi and informed them that they faced a threat to their lives.Justices Singh and Kant asked whether anyone can verify these details or not. “When the country is facing such a situation at present, you cannot come up with fanciful PILs like this. There is no material to support vague and sweeping allegations made in the petition. Unless the petitioner provides prima facie credible material, it is difficult to pass an interim order which is contrary to the one refused on May 8 by a 3-J bench.”Gonsalves referred to a Supreme Court ruling on the protection of Chakma refugees to argue for similar relief for the Rohingyas. He also pointed to a UN report and an order from the International Court of Justice, asserting that the Rohingyas are refugees, not migrants, and their right to life protection is mandated by the UN.STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS ADEnd of Article

Link – 

‘Fanciful PILs’: Supreme Court lashes out at frivolous petitions to block Rohingya deportation