“My brother came to India after our village was burned. He walked for days with wounds on his legs and buried our parents on the way. He was just trying to survive. When the police came, they said it was only for biometrics. He trusted them and went. That was the last time we saw him,” said Amina*, days after her brother, among a group of 38 Rohingya refugees, was reportedly thrown into international waters by Indian officials. Now, a petition filed in the Supreme Court by two refugees states that minors, including girls as young as 15 or 16, senior citizens up to 66 years old, and individuals suffering from serious medical conditions, including cancer, tuberculosis, heart disease and diabetes, faced deportation action that led to them being thrown into the ocean. These Rohingya refugees – including minors, women, the elderly, and the critically ill – all of whom were registered with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees in India, were detained by the Delhi Police. They were reportedly picked up from their homes in New Delhi on the night of May 6 under the “false pretence of biometric data collection.” While reports in the media and the petition itself state that 43 Rohingya refugees were thrown into international waters, Dilwar Hussein, a legal officer at the Socio Legal Information Centre working on the case told The Wire that the number is 38, and an alteration is due to be made in the petition itself. “No legal process was followed, we’ve been through enough to know what due process means. There were no warrants, prior notices or opportunities to be heard. All of them were detained for more than 24 hours in various police stations without being presented in court,” Amina added. Lawyers for the Rohingya petitioners emphasise that the police’s actions were in violation of Article 22 of the Indian Constitution and various procedures within the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which mandate production before a magistrate within 24 hours and prohibit arbitrary detention.They ended up being thrown overboard, allegedly by Indian government officials, into the Bay of Bengal, eventually floating their way back to Myanmar, the land which they fled in the first place. Thomas Andrews, UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, has launched an inquiry into the incident. “I am deeply concerned by what appears to be a blatant disregard for the lives and safety of those who require international protection. Such cruel actions would be an affront to human decency and represent a serious violation of the principle of non-refoulment, a fundamental tenet of international law that prohibits states from returning individuals to a territory where they face threats to their lives or freedom,” Andrews said.‘Deceived, Delhi police lied to them’“They were deceived, Delhi police lied to them,” Hussein said. On the evening of May 6, 38 Rohingya refugees from Delhi’s Uttam Nagar, Vikaspuri, and Hastsal, were detained after being called to the police station on the pretext of collecting biometrics, where they were held for 24 hours. The petition says that they were then transferred to the Inderlok Detention Center on May 7 after authorities claimed that biometric facilities were only available at that location, assuring their release following the procedure. However, that was not the case. Hussein emphasised on the lack of due process, questioning the Delhi police’s reported decision to detain a woman and a minor in the police station without involving a special juvenile police unit. He said, “If the police have taken this action, they must register an FIR. They did not do that. What they did was they kept them overnight – without producing them before a magistrate – and then directly sent them to a detention centre, absolutely violating Article 22”Among those detained was a man caring for his wife who had recently suffered a miscarriage. His wife was left unattended after he was taken away. Three Delhi police officials “who appeared to be heavily intoxicated, attempted to physically assault the woman… used abusive language, and aggressively searched their homes,” when they were unable to locate another man in the area. The second man was also reportedly beaten in custody after he returned home later that night.Hussein also spoke about the condition of “40 plus other Rohingya illegally detained in multiple police stations across Southwest District,” who were reportedly kept in police custody for over 48 hours without access to food, water, essential medication and more. “They were not allowed food. The children were crying. Toddlers were crying for milk. There were elderly people missing their medicines. It was a pathetic situation. Among these people, one man was beaten in custody and was later released only after intervention by the UNHCR’s legal partners,” he said.However, after having their biometrics collected, the first group of over three dozen Rohingya, who were expected to be released, were “blindfolded, had their hands and legs tied and flown to Port Blair in the Andamans to be deported”. Due processGiven the absence of standing orders for deportation by the Foreigners Registration Office (FRRO) and the lack of notice or copy of the deportation order, which can only be issued by the FRRO, how could the group be deported in the first place?During a Supreme Court hearing, solicitor general Tushar Mehta had assured the bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and N. Kotiswar Singh, that the deportation of undocumented Rohingya migrants would adhere to due process under current laws and emphasised that India does not acknowledge them as refugees. While discussing the deportation of Rohingya refugees, it is important to keep two things in mind: One, that deportation of refugees fleeing persecution – like the Rohingya refugees – is itself contrary to the Constitution. In the NHRC v. State of Arunachal Pradesh case, the Supreme Court held that the state is duty-bound to protect the life and liberty of all persons, citizens and non-citizens alike, under Article 21. While the judgment does not categorically ban all deportations, it makes clear that no person, especially a refugee, can be removed in a manner that violates their fundamental rights.Two, even if someone has to be deported, the process involves connecting with the embassy of their country of origin which verifies their identity and if they accept the person as their own, they issue a travel document. Only then can they be deported. “The Indian government abducted these refugees. If the Embassy of Myanmar is not accepting them and refuses to accept that these people are Myanmar nationals, how is the Indian government able to deport them?” Hussein asked. ‘Calculated cruelty’After being flown to Port Blair under mysterious circumstances, the group of Rohingya refugees were transferred onto what was identified as an Indian naval vessel on May 8. “What followed was calculated cruelty,” Colin Gonsalves, a senior advocate and lawyer for the Rohingya refugees in the petition previously listed in the Supreme Court, told The Wire. The detainees were reportedly beaten “black and blue” onboard the ship, Hussein said, by personnel who offered no explanation for the violence. A deported woman, who managed to contact relatives from Myanmar, reported that no female officer was present aboard the vessel and alleged “sexual assault and groping by Indian officials.”Once the vessel approached waters near Myanmar’s coast, the refugees’ bounds were loosened to allow them to swim. Life jackets were distributed and then came a question: “Do you all want to go to Indonesia or Myanmar?”How can a refugee be deported to the state from which they have fled, fearing persecution? While there is no confirmation on how far the group was taken before being thrown into the ocean, Hussein says that the group swam, along with moving ocean currents, for close to 12 hours before arriving on land. On the ship, several among the group began pleading with the officers. They wanted to go to Indonesia but not Myanmar – a country they had fled in fear of certain death, rape, persecution and torture. “They told the officials they would be killed if sent back to Myanmar,” Hussein recounted. But their objections were ignored, and the group assured them that somebody will come to take them to Indonesia. ‘Pushed into water one by one’One by one, they were pushed into the water after being assured of a rescue. Nobody came. With no escort, no assurance, and no sign of any Indonesian rescue, they were left to fend for themselves in the open sea.Hours passed, exhausted and disoriented, the refugees managed to swim toward the nearest visible stretch of land, a group of islands. It was only after they encountered local fishermen, and began speaking to them, that the truth began to settle in. The language was familiar. The shoreline too. They were back in Myanmar, in the Tanintharyi Region.“They could not be deported. The government must ask itself: Why are we deporting them?,” said Gonsalves.Why are we actually deporting the Rohingya?During the proceedings, solicitor general Mehta and advocate Kanu Agrawal informed the bench that the Supreme Court had previously rejected requests to halt the deportation of Rohingya Muslims from Assam and Jammu & Kashmir. Gonsalves strongly asserted that even if the government does not formally recognise their refugee status, the UNHCR does. The international body has ascertained that claims of persecution were genuine and subsequently issued refugee identity cards.Moreover, it must be noted that in the case of Assam and J&K, deportations occurred only after Myanmar confirmed the refugees’ identities and issued travel documents, in line with due process. Were those precedents not flouted when the group from Delhi were not processed, not identified by Myanmar, not handed over through any official channel, and dumped at sea? “In Jammu, the government claimed that they were deporting the Rohingya because of terrorist links, but we all know that was not the case. They are being deported because they are Muslim. That is the only answer that remains. They are not terrorists. They don’t have criminal cases against them. So the government must ask itself: Why are we deporting them?” Gonsalves asked.The Union government has often stated in court that since India is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention or the 1967 Protocol, the Rohingya are essentially “foreigners without rights”However, Hussein pointed out that India “is a signatory to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,” who’s Article 3 clearly states that you cannot return a person to a country where they may face torture. “Haven’t we violated an international convention? Absolutely, we have,” Hussein said. Meanwhile, relatives of those who were thrown at sea wait to hear back from their kin.“My cousin was a kind man. He had his refugee card, never missed a police check, and avoided politics. He was thrown out like trash. I still don’t know if he’s alive or dead since he reached Myanmar. They violated every promise this country made to people like us,” said Rifan*, another Rohingya whose cousin was thrown off the ship on May 8. While UNHCR India has connected with the UN office in Myanmar, which is now trying to locate and extend assistance to these 38 people, lawyers have not been in touch with the group since they first spoke.An official from the Ministry of External Affairs told The Wire, “The matter is subjudice. We won’t have a comment to offer on this matter.”*Names changed for confidentiality.Pranay Roy is a journalist and producer based in New Delhi who reports on international affairs, diplomacy and conflict.