How can a 14-year old minor girl sent to Myanmar border, especially when her parents who have sought asylum in Bangladesh want her back, the Supreme Court asked the Central Government while hearing a petition filed by an NGO seeking permission to provide foster care to the girl, a Rohingya refugee."To leave a minor girl at the border of Myanmar, is that an option? When somebody wants the...
How can a 14-year old minor girl sent to Myanmar border, especially when her parents who have sought asylum in Bangladesh want her back, the Supreme Court asked the Central Government while hearing a petition filed by an NGO seeking permission to provide foster care to the girl, a Rohingya refugee.
"To leave a minor girl at the border of Myanmar, is that an option? When somebody wants the girl back?", the Court asked the Centre.
At the same time, the bench was also not fully convinced about handing over the girl to the petitioner, an NGO named Global Peace Initiative.
The Court had earlier issued notice in a writ petition filed by the NGO against the deportation of the Rohingyan teenage girl from India to Myanmar. The NGO also seeks permission to foster the girl who, it says, is about to be transported to Myanmar from an orphanage in Assam while her parents are stationed in Bangladesh.
During the hearing, a Bench of Justices Abdul Nazeer and V Ramasubramanian doubtfully asked,
"How can the custody of a 14-year-old girl be given to an organization?"
Even the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta expressed his reservations on the same.
Trying to close all doubts, Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde appearing for the NGO submitted that,
"This is one of the largest evangelical organisations. We have large number of women involved in social service. The real issue is that she's stuck in a camp in assam. Her Parents are abroad, and have requested the organisation to help them."
A Letter stated to have been written by the father of the girl to the founder of the NGO Dr.KA Paul was also brought to the attention of the Court which sought the organisation's help to unite the scattered members of the family.
"We are not asking for her permanent custody, only facilitating this process. They are in a camp in Bangladesh. She's in a camp in Assam. It's a humanitarian thing", Hegde said.
"What do the parents exactly want?, the Bench then asked.
"When there are girls are trapped in Bangladesh, there's procedure to be followed", the Bench further observed
"They are Burmese, not Bangladeshi", Hedge clarified.
At this point SG Mehta told that she's not in camp but in a Nari Nikathen.
"It's not a detention centre. Speaking for myself, I've never heard of this organisation. Writing a letter to them to take custody of the child seems suspicious", he added.
"I can give credentials of the organization", said Hegde.
"When an illegal immigrant enters India, they will have to be deported", Mehta told the Court.
But she's a minor, the Bench pointed out.
"She's a minor. Parents want child to send back to them. There can't be any objection to that, right?", the Bench asked.
SG Mehta said that the identities of the parents haven't been verified.
"We can't be sure if people receiving there are parents. These are issues which the government will have to consider."
"But where will you send a minor girl? Where will you deport?", the Bench queried, unclear with the government's stand.
The country of origin, was the reply.
Taken aback by this response, the Bench asked,
"To leave a minor girl at the border of Myanmar, is that an option? When somebody wants the girl back?"
Along with this, the Bench said that the identities of the parents must be checked.
"We need to be sure of the real parents. Otherwise, we will be guilty...And our worry, another aspect, it's a minor girl, she should not go to wrong hands.;;;We are trying to Trust this letter. Our effort is, it should not be misused."
"I'll attempt to provide substantial proof", Hegde said.
"We are not convinced that child should be given to them", the Bench remarked, before the matter concluded. The matter will be next taken up for hearing in six weeks.
The NGO, Global Peace Initiative in the writ averred that the girl's right to life and personal liberty and the parents' right to see their daughter through any humanitarian intervention is at stake before the Top Court.
The Petitioner in the petition has also relied on the Top Court's judgement in Mohammad Salimullah v. Union of India wherein the Court had held that the Rohingyas can be deported only after following due process.
To further substantiate their contention, NGO in its writ has referred to the judgements in Louis De Raedt v. Union of India and National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Anr wherein it was observed that foreigners are entitled to the protection of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Global Peace Initiative through its President v Union of India and Another| WP(C) 521/2021