According to two media sources, Prince Charles has privately described the British government's plans to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda as "appalling," as the first flight carrying refugees to the East African nation is scheduled to depart next week.

The heir to the British throne, Charles, has been heard criticizing the strategy, according to The Times and Daily Mail.

The Times stated that Charles is anxious that the controversial asylum policy would overshadow a Commonwealth gathering in Rwanda where he is scheduled to represent his mother, Queen Elizabeth.

A source told The Times that he was "extremely disappointed" with the policy.

"He stated that the government's entire attitude is abhorrent. It was evident he did not approve of the government's course of action."

A representative for Charles did not deny that he had expressed private opinions regarding the policy.

"We would not comment on rumored anonymous private conversations with the Prince other than to reiterate that he maintains his political neutrality. The government makes judgments regarding matters of policy, the spokeswoman stated.

To undercut people-smuggling networks, the British government revealed in April that it had reached a deal to transfer tens of thousands of asylum seekers to Rwanda.

Up to 130 asylum applicants have been told that they may be deported to Rwanda, while nearly 100 asylum seekers have filed legal challenges to remain in the United Kingdom. Next week, at least 30 persons are still scheduled to be deported.

Friday, a court denied the petitioners' request for an injunction, allowing the government to prevail in a legal challenge to the program. It stated that the initial flight could depart on Tuesday.

The court also permitted human rights organizations to file an appeal scheduled for Monday.

Under the unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom, the royal family should maintain political neutrality. Throughout her seven-decade reign, Queen Elizabeth faithfully maintained her silence.

On the other hand, Charles has aired his opinions on topics near and dear to his heart, including wildlife protection, architecture, and genetically engineered crops.

"Immoral and anti-Christian."

Al Jazeera's Nadeem Baba reported from London that the British government could face additional legal challenges to its proposal.

"It may still be subject to a broader judicial review to determine whether Rwanda is in fact a safe place to send vulnerable individuals," he stated.

On Friday, Geoffrey Robertson, an international human rights attorney, told Al Jazeera that the United Kingdom was required by international law to establish if the individuals facing deportation are genuine asylum applicants suffering persecution.

Sending asylum seekers to Rwanda was viewed by many as "immoral and anti-Christian," Robertson said from London, adding that the legal case is far from done.

"This is a highly controversial topic that should not be decided in a single day. It is going to require a great deal more thought from the courts, which I believe they will provide," he said.

UN authorities and refugee groups have criticized the plan as infeasible and harsh, stating that those who could be transported to Rwanda are refugees from Syria and Afghanistan. They crossed the English Channel in small boats.

According to Baba, the United Kingdom has paid approximately $150 million to the Rwandan government as part of the plan's initial phase in the belief that it will discourage migrants from crossing the English Channel from France in small boats.

More than 28,000 migrants and asylum seekers crossed the English Channel into the United Kingdom in 2017, up from 8,500 in 2020. Countless people had perished, including 27 in November when a single vessel capsized.