ON DECEMBER 16, 2025, while hearing a case concerning the custodial disappearance of five Rohingya persons, the Supreme Court of India granted the Union government two weeks to file its affidavit and scheduled the matter for hearing on January 13, 2026.
The case will be taken up independently on that date, alongside a batch of tagged matters raising broader questions on the legal status and rights of Rohingya refugees. The habeas corpus petition, filed by human rights activist Rita Manchanda, calls for disclosure of official records concerning the disappearance of five Rohingya persons, including a minor, who were taken into custody by officials in Delhi in May, this year.
Advocate Ujjaini Chatterji, appearing for Manchanda requested the Court that the petition be tagged with the related matters, as had been discussed earlier this month on December 2. Chatterji also emphasised that in habeas corpus proceedings, locus standi was not a barrier, as already clarified by the court in earlier jurisprudence. The request for tagging was opposed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union of India.
Despite the opposition, the bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi indicated that it would not rush the hearing or conclusion of such issues and granted the Respondents two weeks’ time to place a status affidavit on record. The Court accordingly listed the matter separately for further consideration on January 13, 2026, while indicating that it would be heard on the same day as other connected cases.
Advocate Ujjaini Chatterji, appearing for Manchanda requested the Court that the petition be tagged with the related matters, as had been discussed earlier this month on December 2.
How five Rohingya refugees disappeared from Delhi
According to the pleadings, five Rohingya persons, Mohammad Sharif, Laila Begam, Syedul Kareem, Kairul Amin and a minor, Ms S, who possessed valid UNHCR Refugee Cards, were taken into custody on May 6, 2025 under the pretext of correcting biometric errors and were assured that once the biometrics were redone, they would return home the same day. However, all five were held overnight at Badarpur police station. They were then moved to the Inderlok detention facility, where they were made to change into identical uniforms with their phones and belongings taken away.
By the afternoon of May 7, all communication with their relatives ceased and none returned home. No detention or deportation orders, embassy communications, exit permit records or any form of official intimation were shared. Around the same time, a United Nations expert launched an inquiry into reports suggesting that Rohingya refugees were abandoned in international waters near the Andaman Islands. In the absence of information, rumours circulated within the community that these missing individuals may have met with the same fate.
Proceedings in Delhi HC raised questions on due process
Invoking the lack of documentation, five habeas corpus petitions were filed before the Delhi High Court in September along with coloured photographs as evidence of the Rohingyas being in custody of the Respondents till May 7. The High Court called for a status report, in which the Union of India acknowledged that the detainees were among forty “illegal immigrants” who were given “Leave India Notice”, and subsequently “handed over to the officials of Delhi Police who escorted the illegal immigrants from restriction centre, sewa sadan, Shahzada Bagh, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi to the designated destination for their repatriation as per procedure.”
In Salimullah v. Union of India (2021), the Supreme Court emphasised that due process must be followed in cases of deportation; and the Union of India, in particular, had argued that it adheres to a procedure that involves notifying the government of the individual’s country of origin and proceeding with deportation only after receiving confirmation from that government.
In the present case, however, no documents were produced to show where the individuals were taken, who received them or whether the Myanmar authorities were notified. The petitioner submitted that mere statement that the Repatriation was “as per procedure” is not sufficient and the need for transparency mandates that relevant information through documentary evidence and record be shared to establish that indeed the process established by law was adhered to at all stages.
At the heart of these proceedings lies the fate of individuals who have fled persecution and violence, and who now stand at the intersection of national security concerns and constitutional guarantees.
Further, the process that governs the deportation of Rohingya and Bangladeshi nationals, according to the Office Memorandum No. 25022/28/2020-F.I (Part. Ill) by the Ministry of Home Affairs (Foreigners Division), requires the Bureau of Immigration to place on a public portal the names of all individuals who have been deported or sent back, enabling independent verification. No such public record was made available.
The applicable procedures also provide a minimum period of thirty days for completing verification and deportation. By contrast, the five individuals disappeared from official custody within approximately a day of being detained. This significant departure from the expected timeline, coupled with the absence of any accompanying documentation, raised questions about whether the verification and repatriation processes were followed in the manner prescribed.
On October 30, the Delhi High Court granted the petitioner liberty to approach the Supreme Court in the view of the pending petition, regarding similar cause of action whereby the repatriation of forty Rohingya, including the said five persons, has been challenged.
What are other similar petitions before the top Court?
Several petitions concerning the status, detention, treatment and deportation of Rohingya persons are currently pending before the Supreme Court. In May this year, a petition titled Mohammad Ismail v. Union of India was filed, alleging that a larger group of Rohingyas had been unlawfully removed from India. That petition seeks compensation for the deportees and their repatriation to India and has been tagged with a batch of Rohingya related matters. While the petition names several individuals, including Mohammad Sharif, Laila Begam, Syedul Kareem, Kairul Amin and a minor, it does not place on record official detention or deportation orders or seek disclosure of the underlying files maintained by the authorities.
On December 2, when the present case reached the Supreme Court, the CJI had asked, "Where is the order of the Government of India declaring them as refugees?,” and noted that in the absence of formal legal status for refugees in India, there is no legal impediment to their deportation. Chatterji clarified that the petition differed from others (including Mohmmad Ismail) as Manchanda was not opposing deportation of the five Rohingyas per se, if carried out according to the due process. Her petition was confined to seeking disclosure of official records to substantiate the government’s claim that all actions relating to the five missing individuals were carried out strictly in accordance with law.
The broader legal questions relating to Rohingya refugees are expected to be addressed in Jaffar Ullah v. Union of India in which the Court framed key issues for adjudication, including whether Rohingyas are entitled to be recognised as refugees and, if so, what rights and protections flow from such recognition. The Court will also examine whether Rohingyas, if treated as illegal entrants, can be lawfully deported, whether they can be subjected to indefinite detention or are entitled to release on conditions, whether those living in refugee camps are being provided basic amenities in compliance with Article 21, and whether deportation, if undertaken, must strictly conform to the procedure established by law.
These questions are scheduled to be heard on January 13 along with more than fifteen other tagged matters - including Mohmmad Ismail - pertaining to Rohingya refugees. The present petition filed by Rita Manchanda is also listed on January 13. However, it will be taken up independently, as it has not been formally tagged with the batch of Rohingya matters.
On January 13, while the Court is expected to address foundational questions on the legal status and rights of Rohingyas in the batch led by Jaffar Ullah, the independent hearing of Rita Manchanda’s petition will simultaneously place the spotlight on transparency, due process and accountability in cases of alleged custodial disappearance. In the absence of a formal refugee protection framework the established procedural safeguards become the only basis on which accountability can be assessed.
At the heart of these proceedings lies the fate of individuals who have fled persecution and violence, and who now stand at the intersection of national security concerns and constitutional guarantees of life, liberty and due process. How the Court balances these competing claims will shape not only the immediate outcomes of the pending cases, but also the broader contours of India’s approach towards vulnerable non-citizens under the Constitution.