Non-refoulment of Refugees in India- a Human Rights Perspective
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.60143/ijls.v5.i1.2019.28Keywords:
No keywords.Abstract
No abstract
Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
Bill Bonner, Destiny is Demography, Business Insider(17th Sept,2011,12.46 am) https://www.businessinsider.com/destiny-is-demography-2011-9?IR=T
Convention Related to Status of Refugees,1951, Art.1
United Nations Resolutions, I (Dusan J. Djanovich ed),8 (1946).
Id.
Weiner, M. “Bad neighbours, Bad neighbourhoods: an inquiry in the causes of refugee flows” 21 International Security, 36-39(1996).
Id. For instance, such groups against which there was wars of central or local government may include notably, Chechens, Kurds, Eritreans, Southern Sudanese, Sri Lankan Tamils, Serbs, Croats, Bosnian Muslims.
Lister, M, who are Refugees? 32 LAW AND PHILOSOPHY, 645-667 (2013).
S. Ogata, “Statement, UNHCR, to the Third Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations,” November 12, (1999).
Article 13 ofthe ICCPR deals with the expulsion ofa person lawfully present in the territory of the state. India hasreserved itsright under this Article to applyits municipal lawrelating to aliens
Article 10 dealing generally with family reunification and Article 38 dealing with children in situations of armed conflict are also relevant.
Arulanantham, T., Restructured Safe Havens: A Proposal for Reform of the Refugee Protection System, HUMAN RIGHTS QUARTERLY 22 ,1-56 (2000).
Id.
RAJEEV DHAVAN, “REFUGEE LAW, POLICY AND PRACTICE IN INDIA” 81-83 (2004).
Dr. Malvika Karlekar v Union of India Crl. W.P. No.243 of 1988 (unreported, available on file with PILSARC), wherein, the Supreme Court stopped deportation of twenty-one Burmese refugees from the Andaman Islands whose applications of refugee status were pending and gave them the right to have their refugee status determined.
Gurunathan v. Government of India, W.P. 6708 and 7196 of 1992 (unreported, available on file with PILSARC).
Supra note 12.
INDIAN CONST. art. 13, 14, 15, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 32 and 51.
INDIAN CONST.art.51
State of Gujarat v. Vora Fiddali A.I.R. 1964, SC 1043. Here, the Court observed that, the well-established position that “the making of a treaty is an executive act, while the performance of its obligations, if they entail alteration of the existing domestic law, requires legislative action”
CHANDRASEKHARA RAO, THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION AND INTERNATIONAL LAW, 130 (Taxman Publication) (1993).
Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1949, p.174, at p. 180.
Hans Muller v. Supt., Presidency Jail, AIR 1955 SC 367.
Supra note 22
TAPAN K BOSE, PROTECTION OF REFUGEES IN SOUTH ASIA: THE NEED FOR A LEGAL FRAMEWORK (2000).
The two (2) main proponents of this theory include of Saxena and of Veerabhadran Vijayakumar respectively. Importantly, Saxena's argument is summarised in Tapan K Bose, Protection of Refugees in South Asia: The Need for a Legal Framework (2000), while Vijayakumar's argument can be found in Veerabhadran Vijayakumar, 'Judicial Responses to Refugee Protection in India', 12 International Journal of Refugee Law 238 (2000).
The principle of non-refoulement constitutes a fundamental aspect of the 1951 Refugee Convention. Article 33 states that "[n]o Contracting State shall expel or return ('refouler') a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories.”
Ahmad. N., 23 Refugee Constitutionalism In India: Measuring Supremacy of Judicial Sovereignty Against Global Human Rights Standards, RELIGION AND LAW REVIEW, 37-118(2014).
Ranee K L Panabi, International Politics in the 1990s: Some Implications for Human Rights and the Refugee Crisis, DICKINSON JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, 11 (1991).
Id.
Technically speaking, non-refoulement is a duty of the host country, not a right of the refugee. However, the "duty of non-refoulement," for all practical purposes, creates in the refugee a right to prevent return.
The term ‘foreigner’s issue’ was first used in the “Memorandum of Understanding signed between the Central Government and the All Assam Students Union.” (Assam Accord, 1985). Available at http://www.assam.gov.in/documents/1631171/0/Annexure_10.pdf?version=1.0. Subsequently, the same term found its way into the Statement of Object and Reasons of The Citizenship (Amendment) Act 1986.
Railway Board V. Das, 2 SCC 465 (2002). The case involved a Bangladeshi woman visiting India. Several employees of the Indian railways raped her at a station and subsequently the hon’ble court upheld her claim that the state-run Railway Board breached her fundamental rights.
Id.
INDIAN CONST. Art.11.
INDIAN CONST, Art. 253
(1996) 1 SCC 742
Statute of the International Court of Justice, Article 38(1) (b).
Id.
Kannan. A., & Supratim Guha. S., 3 Humanising the Indian Refugee Policy: A case for the Refugees’ Right to Work, NLUJ LAW REVIEW 150 (2015) 50 Id.
Vishaka vs State of Rajasthan, AIR SC 3011 (1997).
P. CHANDRASEKHARA RAO, THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION AND INTERNATIONAL LAW, 130 (Taxman publication) (1993).
Chadrahasan. N., 16 Access to Justice and Aliens: Some Insight into Refugee Groups in India, Windsor Y B Access to Justice 135, 139 (1998).
RATIN BANDYOPADHYAY, HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE NON-CITIZEN: LAW AND REALITY, 217 (Deep & Deep Publications Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi).
S.N. Bhargava, “The Relationship Between National Human Rights Institutions and the Judiciary in Protecting Refugees”, Report on Judicial Symposium on Refugee Protection, 92 (13-14 Nov.1999, New Delhi).
Alliance University
