Prashant Bhushan has just lost a case regarding detention and deportation of Rohingyas. It is possible that the case was unwinnable. But it is also true that he is a shit lawyer. By repeating false arguments he gave Tushar Mehta a walk over. Hence he has taken to the Opinion column of the Indian Express to vent his spleen and to tell stupid lies.
The recent order of the Supreme Court disposing of an application seeking the release of Rohingya refugees detained illegally in a sub-jail in Jammu and threatened with deportation to Myanmar, a country currently in the grip of a violent military coup, is bereft of any cogent legal reasoning and lacks an understanding of international law obligations and constitutional protections for refugees and devoid of humanity.
It appears that the Bench thinks the detention is legal. They have the final say in this matter. I may say Bhushan is an illegal alien. But just saying so doesn't make it true.
The Court has given cognent legal reasons. Bhushan is simply lying.
There are no 'international law obligations' binding on the Court. The Indian Constitution puts the onus on the Legislature to give effect to International Treaties by passing Laws such that no conflict arises with municipal law. If the Legislature fails to do so, the Bench must observe municipal, not International, Law. Only in the absence of municipal law can the Bench rely on customary International Law.
Constitutional protection of refugees under Article 21 does not limit their deportation by due process of law. Bhushan is devoid of humanity in that, like a parrot, he goes on repeating lies about the Law without any application of mind.
The United Nations has termed the Rohingya as the world’s most persecuted ethnic minority.
Did the U.N term Bangladeshi Hindus the most persecuted minority? Yet millions of them were killed or had to flee. Sheikh Hasina has yet to get the UN to recognize the Bangladesh genocide.
Why are Muslim nations not coming forward to take the Rohingyas? It is because they contain radical elements. Rohingya militants first killed Hindus before turning on Buddhists. No wonder Bhushan has a soft spot for them.
In August 2017, the Myanmar military launched a clearance campaign in the Rakhine state (home to the ethnic Rohingya), forcing over 7,50,000 of them to flee to neighbouring states, escaping a military operation that killed, burnt and wiped out entire villages.
Amnesty International reports that Rohingya militants killed a hundred Hindu villagers and forcibly converted some women at this time. The Hindus could not retaliate, but the Buddhists did.
Thousands of women were raped and tortured and thousands of children orphaned. Fleeing genocide at the hands of the Burmese military and ultra-religious Buddhist mobs in their home state, about 40,000 Rohingya entered India in waves, and settled in refugee camps across the country. They live in deplorable conditions, with scant access to drinking water, electricity or sanitation. Recently, the home ministry has issued circulars to states sharing borders with Myanmar to push back refugees fleeing the military bloodbath. Pursuant to this, some states issued orders, later withdrawn, not to provide food, shelter or even essential medical care to the refugees. The government’s directive has been to identify, detain and deport these refugees.
This is in accordance with the Law. Detention and deportation must be done as the law provides.
Around March, over 170 Rohingya refugees were detained in Jammu after a biometric verification drive. This despite the detained refugees having UNHCR refugee cards, granted after a process of ascertaining their protection needs and determining that they are indeed refugees who have fled persecution.
One method of getting a stay order is to argue that some of those affected are not of the type suggested. Bhushan admits this is not the case. Those with refugee cards can be sent back to UN monitored camps where they will be safe. This is not refoulement. Myanmar has agreed to start taking back the refugees. This should be done as the law provides because this is the only way they can return to their homes and resume their lives.
The police entered the camps, rounded up and detained men, women, elderly and left children behind. Panic gripped this community as families were separated overnight, family members were reported missing and reports of starving and wailing children began flooding the media. It was clear that these detentions were part of the larger crackdown against the Rohingya, who are a largely Muslim community and hence treated with hostility by our government that refers to them as illegal economic migrants and a national security threat.
These are allegations. Bhushan has failed to substantiate them. Furthermore by beginning his article by lying about the law, he has undermined his own credibility. He is a shit lawyer. Don't employ him unless you want to lose your case.
The Indian government has in the past differentiated between illegal immigrants and refugees in the absence of domestic legislation, such as, in its treatment of Afghan, Sri Lankan or Tibetan refugees. They have been granted the right to apply for long-term visas for refugees in accordance with the government’s 2011 protocol, thereby reaffirming its respect for the institution of asylum.
Anyone has the right to apply for anything she likes. But visa applications can be turned down. Asylum applications can be rejected. In this case Myanmar has agreed to start taking Rohingyas back. If they are returned through legal channels they have a better chance of being able to reclaim their property and resume their normal lives.
The sudden volte face
is not sudden at all. There was a Supreme Court judgment similar to this in 2018.
with respect to the Rohingya is clearly on account of them being Muslim.
There are plenty of Muslims in India. Bhushan may think they too are being detained and deported. But this is not the case.
They are also excluded from the purview of the Citizenship Amendment Act, despite their fleeing what has been described as a “textbook example of ethnic cleansing”.
Rohingyas wanted to be part of East Pakistan. Sadly, Bangladesh is wary of them. However, it is Bangladesh which has taken the most. They have agreed with Myanmar that repatriation should begin. India too should support this. What is important is that the peaceable members of this Community be able to return home and resume their lives. What started the problem was the diabolical actions of militants who massacred Hindus purely on account of their religion.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, while hearing the application seeking a restraint on the deportation of those detained in Jammu jail, and their immediate release, asked how refugees could invoke Article 32 rights.
They can do so only if a fundamental right is threatened. Since Myanmar has agreed to take them back, no such right is threatened by their lawful return to their homes.
He had to be reminded that Article 14 and 21 constitutional protections were equally available to every “person”, including refugees.
Bhushan has to be reminded that 'equal protection under the law' is satisfied if legal procedures are followed. Perhaps he thinks Ajmal Kasab had a 'right to life' such that he could not be executed. Such was not the case. He could be deprived of life provided the thing was done in accordance with the law.
This set the tone for the order that followed. The court first decided to distance itself from the genocide in Myanmar, with which four Indian states share borders stating that it “cannot comment upon something happening in another country”.
This is quite true. Is there ongoing genocide in Myanmar? Some say yes. Some say no. Is there any evidence that refugees whom Myanmar has agreed to take back will be in danger? No. China has an increased role in that country and it is in their interest that this matter is resolved. The military junta will be happy to gain brownie points on this issue because of the contrast with what happened under Suu Kyi.
This abdication of responsibility is shocking in light of the fact that the killing of hundreds of innocent civilians by the military junta since the coup on February 1 this year, along with the ongoing ethnic cleansing of the Rohingyas, has raised an international outcry.
Protestors have been killed. But where is the evidence of 'ongoing ethnic cleansing of Rohingyas'? If Bhushan has any such thing, why does he not share it?
Suppose Bhushan had not lied in every single sentence in this article. Then we might give him the benefit of the doubt. The plain fact of the matter is that Rohingyas will be better off in their own country having been repatriated in a legal and documented manner. The junta has an interest in resolving this issue and China has a strong incentive to provide resources to enable this.
The cretin Bhushan isn't helping the Rohingyas. He is harming them with his stupid lies.
Earlier on January 23, 2020, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) gave a landmark judgment of grave significance in the context of the ethnic atrocities faced by the Rohingya in Myanmar. The court found that the Rohingya had suffered genocide and ordered the government of Myanmar to restrain their military forces from continuing with the oppression.
This is irrelevant. The remedy Myanmar needs to provide is to permit repatriation and resettlement. They have agreed to do so. Bhushan should read Jaishankar's letter of 2019 setting out India's position w.r.t the ICJ.
This order was unanimously issued by a 15-member bench of the ICJ on a petition brought before it by the state of Gambia against the state of Myanmar, alleging that the crimes against the Rohingya violate the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
Genocide occurred in Rwanda. This did not mean that the Tutsis did not return home.
India ratified the convention in 1959; in fact, India, along with Panama and Canada was the force behind the adoption of the Genocide Convention on December 9, 1948.
This did not help Hindus in Bangladesh did it?
Despite India’s binding obligations, the Supreme Court chose to turn a blind eye to this factual reality of genocide and ethnic cleansing facing the Rohingya.
The Bench has to look at the evidence submitted by counsel. Just because Bhushan is a shit lawyer does not mean that the Court has to do his job for him.
The court ignored India’s binding commitment to non-refoulement and obligations in prohibiting genocide, both non-derogable norms of international law, on which the petitioner had based the application.
There is no refoulement where repatriation occurs through proper legal channels. Bhushan has failed to grasp this. Moreover, he failed to rebut the Government's contention that India has not accepted non refoulement with respect to certain neighboring countries. The Bench observed- '(iii) that India is not a signatory
either to the United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees 1951 or
to the Protocol of the year 1967; (iv) that the principle of non refoulement is
applicable only to “contracting States”. However they also said that National Courts could give consideration to such arguments if warranted.
The petitioner had pointed out how, as a matter of legal principle, refoulement or sending refugees back to a place where they face persecution, has been held to be a breach of Article 21. In Ktaer Abbas Habib Al Qutaifi v Union of India, the Gujarat High Court held, “This principle [of non-refoulement] prevents expulsion of a refugee where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. Its application protects the life and liberty of a human being irrespective of his nationality. It is encompassed in Article 21 of the Constitution.”
The case concerned Iraqis who were liable for punishment as 'deserters'. However, Iraqis are not economic migrants and that country is not contiguous to ours nor is there any national security concern.
The same was held by the Delhi High Court in Dongh Lian Kham v Union of India (2016).
This concerned people with Long term Visas who were subject to charges re. narcotic trafficking. Once again, this has no relevance to the present case. The relevant precedent is the Supreme Court's own 2018 judgment re. Rohingyas detained in Assam.
If some Rohingyas who had been repatriated were in fact killed, evidence of this should be uncovered. Repeating stupid lies in Court just wastes everybody's time.
The court then went on to state that the petitioners’ claim to a right against deportation is concomitant with the right to reside in any part of the country (an Article 19 right available only to citizens).
That is indeed the law- and not just in India.
This is a misconceived compartmentalisation of these rights by the court when the guarantee of these rights flow from each other and form what is called the golden triangle of the Constitution.
Bhushan is making this shit up. He may believe that if you live in a deportation facility in India or the US or the UK then you have a right to live anywhere in India or the US or the UK. Thus you can't be deported. Moreover the same applies if you are in a foreign jail. You have a right to reside anywhere in that foreign country. Thus you must be released from the jail and be provided with accommodation at a 5 star hotel of your choosing. This is a wonderful doctrine! If you want to live in America, just go there and get arrested for a crime. You automatically get the right to quit your jail cell and live anywhere you like in America without fear of deportation.
Articles 14, 19 and 21- the 'golden triangle' don't give you immunity from legal proceedings. You can be detained and deported provided this is done by a procedure established by law.
The Rohingya refugees have never claimed the right to reside or settle in any part of India but they have prayed for the right to life
Bhushan needed to show that this would have been put in jeopardy by a procedure established by law. He failed to do so, being too busy telling stupid lies.
— to reside in a camp without being threatened to be deported into a country where they face genocide, and the right to liberty by being afforded protection from arbitrary arrests, harassment and intimidation.
A lawyer needs to do more than just repeat his client's claim. He needs to provide evidence that a procedure established by law, to which his client is subject, is unsafe in some specific respect.
Bhushan's ignorance and stupidity endangers his clients.
By displaying such ignorance and insensitivity, the court’s human rights jurisprudence has plummeted to an unpardonable new low.
Though, all that has happened is that a 2018 judgment has been echoed.
Most striking, however, is the court echoing the government’s submissions on the Rohingya posing an internal security threat, which the government raises as a bogey without any evidence.
Did the Bench say 'Rohingyas are a threat?' No. The Bench, as is customary, recorded the assertions made by both parties before giving its judgment which is as follows-
We have carefully considered the rival contentions. There is no denial
of the fact that India is not a signatory to the Refugee Convention.
Therefore, serious objections are raised, whether Article 51(c) of the
Constitution can be pressed into service, unless India is a party to or
ratified a convention. But there is no doubt that the National Courts can
draw inspiration from International Conventions/Treaties, so long as they
are not in conflict with the municipal law. Regarding the contention raised
on behalf of the petitioners about the present state of affairs in Myanmar,
we have to state that we cannot comment upon something happening in
another country.
13. It is also true that the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 are
available to all persons who may or may not be citizens. But the right not to
be deported, is ancillary or concomitant to the right to reside or settle in any
part of the territory of India guaranteed under Article 19(1)(e).
14. Two serious allegations have been made in reply of the Union of India.
They relate to (i) the threat to internal security of the country; and (ii) the
agents and touts providing a safe passage into India for illegal immigrants,
due to the porous nature of the landed borders. Moreover, this court has
already dismissed I.A.No. 142725 of 2018 filed for similar relief, in respect
of those detained in Assam.
15. Therefore, it is not possible to grant the interim relief prayed for.
However, it is made clear that the Rohingyas in Jammu, on whose behalf
the present application is filed, shall not be deported unless the procedure
prescribed for such deportation is followed. Interlocutory Application is
disposed of accordingly.
By reiterating the government’s allegations in the operative part of its judgment and ordering the Rohingya be deported only in accordance with the procedure prescribed for such deportation, the Supreme Court
rejected Bhushan's spurious claims regarding Indian law. This makes Bhushan furious. Bench is corrupt! It is tool of ruling party! All those Judges are constantly anally raping me while uttering casteist slurs and making fun of my moustache! Is this what you call Justice?!
has betrayed its lack of judicial consciousness with regard to the human rights violations of persecuted refugees and has displayed its capitulation to the government’s divisive agenda.
Why does Bhushan stop there? Why does he not say 'thousands of murderers and rapists are languishing in Indian jails. The 'golden triangle' of the Indian Constitution gives them the right to live anywhere in India- including Rashtrapati Bhavan or the Taj Hotel! All convicts must be immediately released from jail and be properly housed in a 5 star hotel of their choice.
Why is Bench capitulating to Government's divisive agenda which separates murderers and rapists from their victims? It is because they are all corrupt and evil. Each time I appear in Court, they leap upon me and sodomize me incessantly. Why can't they at least give me a reach around from time to time? Yogendra Yadav is my confidante in this matter. Kejriwal buggered us both before expelling us from Aam Admi Party. At the time, he told me to keep quiet about our humiliation. He said 'people will laugh at us, if they learn that our bungholes are dripping with Kejriwal cum. Tell you what, we'll set up our own Party. I will become Prime Minister. You can be President. Then we'll scrap the Constitution and put an actual golden triangle in its place. This golden triangle will grant everybody's wishes because it will have powerful jadoo. We ourselves will avail of its power to cause Kejriwal's moustache to fall off. Let us see if he will dare to sodomize us then!'
Yadav has kept his word. I am already president of 'Swaraj Abhiyan' which is a super-duper party which everybody wants to vote for. You just wait, soon I will be President not just of India but Amrika and Yurop also! Then all those judges will come crawling to me saying 'sorry we sodomized you. We should have been more respectful.' I will hit them with golden triangle. They will cry and cry.
No comments:
Post a Comment