Paper short abstract:

We will look here at the bits and pieces of existing law, at judiciary precedent and at the various attempts to design a refugee law, in order to understand better how India treats one specific category of non-citizens – refugees.

Paper long abstract:

This proposed paper offers to reflect on the making of citizenship in India by examining the way one specific category of non-citizens is treated, namely, refugees. India, which is host to a variety of refugees, takes an ambiguous stance vis-à-vis the refugee issue. It presents itself, and is also usually recognized as, a welcoming host country, but refugees there are not granted the same legal protection as refugees in most other countries. This comes from India's refusal to adhere to the international refugee system: it has signed neither the 1951 Geneva Convention nor the 1967 Additional Protocol and is therefore not a member of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). It also comes from India's decision not to adopt a domestic refugee law, which means that, from a legal standpoint, refugees in India are no different from any other foreigners.

In fact, the existing legal framework for dealing with refugees in India is made up of bits and pieces, which law practitioners use to provide adequate protection to refugees. It has often been pointed out that judges have been quite efficient at creatively interpreting the existing law in order to provide refugees with the maximum protection possible. We will look here at the bits and pieces of existing law, at judiciary precedent and at the various attempts to design a refugee law, in order to understand better how India distinguishes between citizens and non-citizens.