The Supreme Court (SC) has stated that illegal migrants do not possess legal rights within the country, raising concerns about the treatment of undocumented individuals and the strain on national resources. The court's remarks came during a hearing on a habeas corpus plea concerning the alleged disappearance of five Rohingya illegal immigrants following their detention.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi addressed a petition filed by rights activist Rita Manchanda. The petition concerned the whereabouts of five Rohingya illegal immigrants who were untraceable after being detained. The court adjourned the hearing to December 16, when other matters relating to Rohingya illegal migrants would be taken up.

During the proceedings, the bench voiced concerns about the implications of providing rights to those who enter the country illegally. Chief Justice Kant questioned whether "intruders" should be given a "red carpet welcome" while many of the nation's own citizens face poverty. He further asked how far the law could be "stretched" to accommodate illegal immigrants, especially considering India's sensitive border issues.

The court acknowledged the need for a humane approach but emphasized that the rights of Indian citizens, particularly the poor, should take precedence over those of illegal migrants. "Once these illegal migrants are in India, they claim right to food and shelter and help for their children. We have many poor people in the country. They have a right over the country's resources, not the illegal migrants," Chief Justice Kant observed. However, the court also added that illegal migrants should not be subjected to custodial torture.

The Supreme Court's remarks have ignited discussions about the legal and ethical considerations surrounding illegal immigration, particularly concerning the Rohingya community. The Rohingya are a Muslim ethnic group, many of whom have fled Myanmar due to persecution and violence.

The court also questioned whether the Union government has issued any order that declared Rohingyas as refugees. The bench stated that refugee is a well-defined legal term and there is a prescribed authority by the government to declare them.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed the petition, stating that it sought details about the deportation process of Rohingya, discussions India had with other countries on the matter, and the contents of relevant files.

The Supreme Court's stance aligns with its previous observations on the issue of illegal immigration. In a 2005 judgment, the court noted that Assam faced "external aggression and internal disturbance" due to the influx of Bangladeshi migrants. This highlights the long-standing concerns about the impact of illegal immigration on the country's security and resources.