The Supreme Court on Friday (May 16) declined to stay the deportation of Rohingya refugees, raising serious doubts about the credibility of the claims made in a petition alleging that a group had been forcibly sent back to Myanmar and "pushed into a war zone."

A two-judge bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N K Singh expressed strong reservations about the evidence presented by the petitioner and noted that similar pleas had previously been rejected by a larger bench on May 8, The Indian Express reported.

The matter has now been referred to a three-judge bench, with the next hearing scheduled for July 31.

Describing the petitioner’s account as a “very beautifully crafted and drafted story,” Justice Kant questioned the timing and intent behind the plea, remarking, “When the country is passing through such a difficult time, you come out every day with fanciful ideas.”

The court insisted that the allegations of forcible deportation must be backed by substantial prima facie material, which, it said, was lacking in this case.

Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for the petitioner, claimed that 38 Rohingya refugees were picked up and forcibly relocated to an island in the Andamans before being sent into conflict-ridden Myanmar.

He submitted that the petitioner had a recorded phone call from one of the deported individuals. However, the bench questioned the authenticity of the call and the lack of verification, pointing out that in an age of cybercrime, calls from foreign numbers could easily be spoofed.

“Who has verified that these calls are from Myanmar? Cyber criminals sitting in India keep calling from US, UK, Dubai numbers etc. Who has verified it?” asked Justice Kant, underscoring the need for verifiable evidence.

The bench also rebuked the petitioner for relying on reports from international bodies, including the United Nations, asserting, “People sitting outside don’t dictate our authority and our sovereignty.”

Gonsalves cited the precedent of Chakma refugees, who were granted citizenship based on a government commitment to the court. However, the bench countered that no such undertaking existed in the present case and emphasized that each case must be examined within its specific context.

While Gonsalves argued that the individuals in question were recognized as refugees by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the court maintained that there remains a “serious dispute” over whether they qualify as refugees under Indian law.

It directed the petitioner to submit any material evidence in his possession to the Attorney General or Solicitor General for appropriate consideration by the authorities.