Context: The plight of Rohingya refugees in India highlights gross violations of constitutional and human rights, as detailed in a recent study by The Azadi Project and Refugees International.
Relevance: GS 1 (Society), GS 2 (Social Justice)
History:
- Rohingya refugees, a stateless population from Myanmar, face persecution and are detained under India’s domestic laws despite international principles such as non-refoulement.
- The lack of a standardised refugee policy, inconsistent treatment, and poor living conditions compound their struggles.
International Protections for Rohingya Refugees:
- Non-refoulement: Prohibits deporting individuals to countries where they may face harm; recognized under the 1951 Refugee Convention, customary law, and ICCPR.
- India, though not a signatory to the Refugee Convention, is bound by some international obligations, including the ICCPR.
India’s Legal Position:
- Rohingya are classified as “illegal migrants” under the Foreigners Act, 1946, and Passport Act, 1967.
- The Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 excludes Rohingya Muslims from citizenship pathways.
Judicial Stance:
- Courts have recognized non-refoulement under Article 21 (e.g., Gujarat and Delhi High Courts).
- The Supreme Court has allowed deportations, citing national security (Mohammad Salimullah v. Union of India).
Living Conditions and Challenges:
- Detention centres, such as Assam’s Matia Camp, have inhumane conditions.
- NGOs face funding restrictions under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, limiting legal and humanitarian aid.
Policy Gaps:
- India lacks a uniform refugee policy, leading to inconsistent treatment of refugees.
- Geopolitical interests dictate preferential treatment for some groups (e.g., Tibetans) over Rohingya.
India’s handling of Rohingya refugees highlights the need for a comprehensive refugee law to ensure fair treatment, adherence to international obligations, and improved living conditions.
