The Rohingya refugees allegedly lured into deportation from India had been living in the capital city, New Delhi (pictured), prior to being expelled. csi
At the height of the India-Pakistan clashes in early May, around 40 Rohingya refugees—some Christian, some Muslim, all holding valid UNHCR refugee cards—were forcibly expelled from India. Relevant documents and an audio-recorded testimony obtained by CSI indicate that the operation was conducted in violation of established international norms and raises serious concerns about the lack of accountability in India.
The operation also appears to have violated India’s own laws—specifically, the conditions set out in the Supreme Court of India’s interim judgment, which was the legal basis for the action.
Blindfolded and taken to sea
What follows is an account of how the operation was carried out—based on a first-hand testimony from one of the deportees, shared with a local activist.
On May 6, the Delhi police called Rohingya refugees residing in New Delhi on the phone, instructing them to report to the Uttam Nagar area police station for “biometric verification” with their UNHCR refugee cards.
Upon arriving at the station, the refugees were escorted by police to an unofficial holding area in southwest Delhi’s Dwarka. Some personnel at the facility were allegedly armed with rods. The refugees were detained there and later transferred to another such facility in Rajouri, where other Rohingya detainees were being held—some for years.
Personnel falsely told the refugees they would soon meet UNHCR representatives. Instead, they were taken by bus to Hindon Airbase in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, near Delhi, and put on a military aircraft.
The plane landed in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, located in the Bay of Bengal, southeast of mainland India. There, armed men in military-style uniforms took custody of the group. The refugees were separated by gender; some had their hands tied and faces blindfolded.
They were then placed on a Navy ship, where they were told they had two options: Indonesia or Myanmar. The refugees asked to be taken to Indonesia, citing the ongoing civil war in Myanmar.
On the ship, interrogations followed, marked by physical abuse and religious targeting. One Christian refugee was beaten, subjected to a forced physical inspection, and isolated in a dark room. His wife’s pleas to the officers eventually led to his being let out.
After several hours, the refugees were transferred from the Navy ship to boats operated by Indian personnel. Their hands were bound tightly, with their heads forced down, and threats of violence were issued. They were taken near the coast of the Tanintharyi region of southern Myanmar, where a rope was tied between a tree and the boat, and they were ordered to wade through the water to shore using life jackets. Some struggled to swim. They were told an agent would meet them onshore, but no one came.
In Myanmar, they were without documentation—their phones had been wiped, SIM cards removed and UNHCR cards confiscated. They are now in territory controlled by the People’s Defense Force (PDF), an armed resistance group formed by the country’s shadow National Unity Government to fight the military junta and restore democracy. The PDF has offered them safety.
An Illegal Deportation
This account points to clear violations of Indian law and international norms. Here’s how.
On May 8, human rights lawyers petitioned the Supreme Court of India to halt the deportation. The Court stated that an April 2021 interim order on this matter stands and no additional directions will be issued.
The April 2021 interim order, in Mohammad Salimullah v. Union of India, permitted the government to deport Rohingya refugees from the northern city of Jammu. It also added, “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.”
In the lower house of the Indian parliament in December 2014, India’s Ministry of Home Affairs stated,
“Ministry of Home Affairs has issued consolidated instructions regarding the procedure to be followed for deportation/ repatriation of a foreign national to all State Governments/UT [Union territory] Administrations on 24.4.2014. As per this procedure, in all cases where the foreigner has completed the sentence/ court proceedings, he/she is immediately deported if the foreigner has a valid travel document/passport subject to no other court case is pending against him/her and there is nothing adverse against him/her. In case the foreigner does not have a valid travel document /passport, the issuance of the requisite travel document is taken up with the Embassy/High Commission of the country concerned and the foreigner can be deported only after the travel document is made available by the Embassy/ High Commission concerned.”
The 40 Rohingya refugees forcibly taken to Myanmar had no valid citizenship documents from that country, and Indian authorities did not request travel documents from the Myanmar embassy. They carried only UNHCR refugee cards, which are not recognized as proof of citizenship.
Further, Indian authorities sent refugees to an area controlled not by the junta but by anti-junta forces, and used small boats to deliver them into foreign territory without oversight. This suggests either covert involvement of a third party or an unauthorized crossing into Myanmar’s maritime border. According to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a country’s sovereignty extends up to 12 nautical miles (about 22 km) from its baseline, usually the low-water line along the coast.
India cannot claim “innocent passage,” under Article 17 of the UNCLOS that allows a foreign ship to pass through a coastal state’s territorial sea within 12 nautical miles of its coast without interference, as long as it doesn’t threaten the peace, security or order of that state. The act of taking refugees near or into Myanmar’s territorial waters without coordination or consent—and leaving them there—is not included in the innocent passage principle.
Furthermore, the operation exposed 40 stateless individuals to extreme danger, in clear violation of the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits returning people to a country where they risk serious harm. Myanmar’s junta has attempted genocide against the Rohingya population. Notable incidents include the Maung Nu massacre in August 2017, where soldiers reportedly killed at least 82 Rohingya villagers – which led to investigations and arrest warrants by international bodies such as the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Although India is not a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol, the country is a signatory to various UN treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, where the principle of non-refoulement is embedded. Besides, Article 21 of India’s Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty to all persons, including non-citizens.
The Supreme Court of India permitted the government to deport refugees, but not to endanger their lives by unilaterally abandoning them.
The incident raises urgent questions about the conduct of Indian authorities and the breakdown of procedural safeguards. It sets a dangerous precedent not only for the Rohingya but for all stateless and displaced individuals within India’s borders. The use of deception, physical coercion and possible violation of another nation’s sovereignty marks a serious breach of both domestic and international legal standards.
Disclaimer: All information presented here is based on testimonies and documents obtained and held by CSI. CSI has taken reasonable steps to verify these accounts.
