The refugees in India are protected by the international human rights instruments, the constitution of India as well as the cases decided by the Apex Courts. The refugees are protected by the principle of non-refoulement even though India being non-signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention.

1. By Advocate Fazal Abdali

2. By Advocate Fazal Abdali

3. 1951 UN Refugee Convention: “A person
who owing to a well-founded fear of being
persecuted for reasons of race, religion,
nationality, membership of a particular
social group or political opinion, is
outside the country of his nationality and
is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling
to avail himself of the protection of that
country; or who, not having a nationality and
being outside the country of his former
habitual residence as a result of such
events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is
unwilling to return to it."
By Advocate Fazal Abdali

4. By Advocate Fazal Abdali

5.  Economic Migrants
 Internally Displaced Persons(IDPs)
 Temporary Residents,Tourist and
Travelers
 Stateless Persons
By Advocate Fazal Abdali

6. By Advocate Fazal Abdali

7.  Absence of the Municipal law relating to
Refugees
 Unawareness of the local administration
 India not signatory to UN convention
relating to refugee 1951
 Application of The Foreigners Act
By Advocate Fazal Abdali

8.  The protection of refugees in India is by
the followings:
 International treaties and Conventions
 Constitutional Provisions
 Case laws
By Advocate Fazal Abdali

9.  Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR) 1948
 International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR) 1966
 International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights(ICESCR) 1966
 The Convention Against Torture And
Other Cruel, Inhuman Or Degrading
Treatment Or Punishment, 1984
By Advocate Fazal Abdali

10.  Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination Against Women,
1979
 Convention on the Rights of the Child,
1990
 Genocide Convention,1948
By Advocate Fazal Abdali

11.  Non Refoulement means a refugee's right
not to be expelled from one state to
another, especially to one where his or
her life or liberty would be threatened.
• The principle of non-refoulement ostensibly
protects persons from being expelled from
countries that are signatories to the 1951
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the
1967 Protocol Convention Relating to the Status of
Refugees, or the 1984 Convention Against Torture.
By Advocate Fazal Abdali

12. Article 14:
1.Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in
other countries asylum from persecution;
2.2. This right may not be invoked in the case of
prosecutions genuinely arising from non-
political crimes or from acts contrary to the
purposes and principles of the United Nations
By Advocate Fazal Abdali

13. • An alien lawfully in the territory of a State Party
to the present Covenant may be expelled
therefrom only in pursuance of a decision
reached in accordance with law and shall,
except where compelling reasons of national
security otherwise require, be allowed to submit
the reasons against his expulsion and to have his
case reviewed by, and be represented for the
purpose before, the competent authority or a
person or persons especially designated by the
competent authority
By Advocate Fazal Abdali

14.  No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or
extradite a person to another State where there are
substantial grounds for believing that he would be in
danger of being subjected to torture; 2. For the
purpose of determining whether there are such
grounds, the competent authorities shall take into
account all relevant considerations including, where
applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a
consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations
of human rights
By Advocate Fazal Abdali

15. • No Contracting State shall expel or return
('refouler') a refugee in any manner whatsoever
to the frontiers of territories where his life or
freedom would be threatened on account of his
race, religion, nationality, membership of a
particular social group or political opinion
By Advocate Fazal Abdali

16. By Advocate Fazal Abdali

17.  Equality before Law – The State shall not deny to
any person equality before the law or the equal
protection of eh laws within the territory of India”
 National Human Rights Commission v. State of
Arunachal Pradesh, (1996 (1) SCC 742)
 Our Constitution confer certain rights on every human
being and certain other rights on citizens. Every person
is entitled to equality before the law and equal protection
of the laws. So also, no person can be deprived of his life
or personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law. This State is bound to protect the life
and liberty of every human being, be he a citizen or
otherwise and it cannot permit anybody or group or
persons e.g. the AAPSU, to threaten the Chakmas to leave
the state.
By Advocate Fazal Abdali

18.  Protection of life and personal liberty - No
person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty
except according to procedure established by law
 Chairman Railway Board and Others v. Chandrima Das and
Others (2000 (2) SCC 465)
 The Supreme Court held that since "LIFE" is also recognised as
a basic human right in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, 1948, it has to have the same meaning and
interpretation as has been placed on that word by this Court in
its various decisions relating to Article 21 of the Constitution.
The meaning of the word "life" cannot be narrowed down.
According to the tenor of the language used in Article 21, it will
be available not only to every citizen of this Country, but also to
a "person" who may not be a citizen of the country
By Advocate Fazal Abdali

19.  Foster respect for international law and treaty
obligations in the dealings of organized peoples
with one another; and encourage settlement of
international disputes by arbitration.
• Maganbhai Ishwarbhai Patel vs Union of India
(1970 (3) SCC 400)
The Supreme Court held that Making of law… is
necessary when (international) treaty or
agreement operates to restrict the rights of the
citizens or others or modifies the laws of the State.
If the rights of the citizens or others which are
justiciable are not affected, no legislative
measures are needed to give effect to the
agreement or treatyBy Advocate Fazal Abdali

20.  Gramophone Company of India Limited vs
Birendra Pandey (1984 (SC) AIR 677)
The Supreme Court held that there can be no
question that nations must march with the
international community and the municipal law
must respect rules of international law just as
nations respect international conventions. The
comity of nations requires that the rules of
international law may be accommodated in the
municipal law even without express legislative
sanction provided they do not run into conflict
with Acts of Parliament.By Advocate Fazal Abdali

21.  Vishaka vs State of Rajasthan, 1997
 The Supreme Court held that in the absence of domestic
law occupying the field, to formulate effective measures
to check the evil of sexual harassment of working
women at all work places, the contents of international
conventions and norms are significant for the purpose
of interpretation of the guarantee of gender equality,
right to work with human dignity in Articles 14, 15, 19
(g), and 21 of the Constitution and the safeguards
against sexual harassment implicit therein. Any
international convention not inconsistent with
fundamental rights and in harmony with its spirit must
be read into these provisions to enlarge the meaning
and contents thereof, to promote the object of the
Constitutional guarantee.
By Advocate Fazal Abdali

22.  People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs Union
of India (1997 (3) SCC 433)
• The Supreme Court held that the provisions of
the Covenant which elucidate and go to
effectuate the fundamental rights guaranteed by
our Constitution can certainly be relied upon by
the courts as facets of those fundamental rights
and hence enforceable as such.
By Advocate Fazal Abdali

23. By Advocate Fazal Abdali

24.  The Supreme Court held that pending
the determination of the individual
refugee status, these individuals shall not
be deported so long as they pose no
danger or threat to the security of the
country.
By Advocate Fazal Abdali

25.  That Supreme Court held that the state
which has granted him asylum must not
later return him to the country whence he
came.
 Nevertheless, once lawfully admitted to a
territory, they are entitled to certain
minimum rights necessary to the
enjoyment of ordinary private life.
By Advocate Fazal Abdali

26. It was held by the Bombay High Court that:
“there is no question of deporting the
Iranian refugee to Iran, since he has
been recognised as a refugee by the
UNHCR.”
By Advocate Fazal Abdali

27.  Hon’ble Gujarat High Court showed a sympathetic approach
towards the petitioners. The petitioners, Iraqi refugees certified
by UNHCR, were detained under the Foreigners Act by the state
government and were to be deported. The petitioners stated
that their lives were in danger, as they refused to join the Iraqi
army due to their abhorrence of violence. The plea of the
petitioners that they feared persecution in their country of
origin found support in a report by UNHCR. The report pointed
out that as per an order issued by the Iraqi government, the
auricle of one ear of any person evading military service shall
be cut off. The court held that, “humanitarian jurisprudence is
now an international creed in time of peace and war.” The
court also directed the state government to consider the case
from a humanitarian point of view. The High Court held that the
petitioners should not be deported from India until their prayer
was considered in accordance with law.
By Advocate Fazal Abdali

28.  The Bombay High Court stayed the
deportation of the petitioner and further
directed the UNHCR to hear and dispose
of the appeal filed by the petitioner
within a period of one month from the
date of receipt of the order
By Advocate Fazal Abdali

29.  The Kerala High Court held that a refugee
stands on a different footing from a
foreigner or any illegal emigrant who
entered the country without valid passport
or travel document. And further stated that
the Supreme Court of India has in number of
cases stayed deportation of refugees even
where claim for refugees status was
pending determination, provided a prima
facie case has been made out for grant of
“refugees” status.By Advocate Fazal Abdali

30.  The principle of “non-refoulement”, which prohibits expulsion of a
refugee, who apprehends threat in his native country on account of his
race, religion and political opinion, is required to be taken as part of the
guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as “non-
refoulement” affects/protects the life and liberty of a human being,
irrespective of his nationality. This protection is available to a refugee but
it must not be at the expense of national security.
 Since the petitioners apprehend danger to their lives on return to their
country, which fact finds support from the mere grant of refugee status to
the petitioners by the UNHCR, it would only be in keeping with the
golden traditions of this country in respecting international comity and
according good treatment to refugees that the respondent FRRO hears the
petitioners and consults UNHCR regarding the option of deportation to a
third country, and then decide regarding the deportation of the
petitioners and seek approval thereafter, of the MHA (Foreigners
Division).
By Advocate Fazal Abdali

31.  Individual’s case of fear of Persecution in
the country of Origin.
 Political situation of the country of Origin
 Whether he is a recognized as a mandate
refugee by UNHCR.
 Lacuna in the Municipal Laws
By Advocate Fazal Abdali

32.  Constitutional Provisions
 Principal of non- refoulement
 Case Laws
By Advocate Fazal Abdali

33. By Advocate Fazal Abdali