NEW DELHI: The

gave the jitters to the Centre on Friday by seeking to prohibit the deportation of

, before coming around to say that it would seek to strike the right balance between humanitarian consideration for the asylum-seekers from

and the government’s concern that they posed a threat to national interest, including security, economy and the working class.

Before adjourning the hearing in the contentious matter to November 21 for a wider debate, the bench surprised both the petitioners and the Centre by saying it intended to pass an interim order, “Don’t deport. Take action (against criminal elements) where required.” The petitioners, who had not sought such an interim order, were overjoyed. But additional solicitor general Tushar Mehta protested, telling the bench that such an order was unwarranted as even the petitioners had not mentioned any contingency.

The petitioners had challenged a central government directive to states to sensitise law-enforcing and intelligence departments to identify and deport all illegal Rohingya migrants, who the petitioners said had come to India to save their lives from brutal persecution unleashed by the Myanmar army in Rakhine province.

Mehta said the issue had wide ramifications and the government was in talks with

and Myanmar to find a permanent solution to illegal migration that threatened India’s national security, economic interests and the interest of the labour class.

“Passing such an interim order was not required as even the petitioners have not sought it,” he said.

The bench changed its mind and acknowledged, “There cannot be an iota of doubt that there has to be a broader humanitarian approach to the issue which has come before the court for the first time. But national interest cannot be kept secondary. A balance has to be struck.”

After a lot of persuasion by Mehta, the

agreed not to pass any interim order and recorded

’s submission that if the petitioners felt there was any exigency (in event of any government action to deport the Rohingya), they would move the court.

The

said, “We have developed a tradition to protect people in humanitarian situations. But we have to see how far the court can go in this issue (sic). There are competing interests. On one side it is national, security, economic and labour interests and on the other side, there are children, women, infirm, sick and aged who need protection. A migrant having terror links gets deprived of humanitarian considerations. But children, women and infirm have to be dealt with differently.” Nariman added it was fallacious on the part of the Centre to argue that the Rohingya issue was in the executive’s exclusive domain