Open Access Research Article
White Black Legal – International Law Journal · ISSN 2581-8503
ADMINISTRATIVE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR PROTECTION OF MIGRANT WORKERS: A COMPARATIVE LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS OF THE CONSULAR PROTECTION SYSTEMS IN INDIA AND SRI LANKA ACROSS GCC STATES
Read the Full Research Paper
Access the complete open-access article in PDF format. No login is required.
Abstract
ADMINISTRATIVE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR PROTECTION OF MIGRANT WORKERS: A
COMPARATIVE LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS OF THE CONSULAR PROTECTION SYSTEMS
IN INDIA AND SRI LANKA ACROSS GCC STATES
AUTHORED BY - ELAKIYYANGNANABARATHI
School of Law, Vellore Institute of
Technology, VIT Chennai, Kelambakkam - Vandalur Rd, Melakottaiyur, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu, India 600127.
CO AUTHOR- PROF. A. BERTILA
Assistant Professor of Law, VIT,
School of Law, VIT Chennai, Kelambakkam - Vandalur Rd, Melakottaiyur, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu, India 600127.
Abstract
This paper
examines the rules, laws and ways that regulate the provision of services to
workers from India and Sri Lanka in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). This
paper pays attention to the laws that decide care, responsible choices, fair
actions and specific ways of solving problems. This paper analyses the
functioning of Sri Lankan embassies as the official bodies that address the
problems of guest workers. The methodology of this paper is based on the
comparison of the norms of the laws of India and Sri Lanka and the analysis of
information published on websites dedicated to workers’ complaints in addition
to questions and court decisions. This paper tries to identify how Indian and
Sri Lankan consulates care for guest workers by examining the powers given to
their representatives. The Indian care system is found to be highly structured
and to rely heavily on technology and legal supervision. The Indian care system
does not respond effectively to issues such as forced labor and underpayment.
The Sri Lankan model is based on the involvement of officials and sending back
of guest workers quickly which does not allow guest workers to protect their
rights in court. This study concludes that the legal support of workers in need
in both India and Sri Lanka is limited which is especially evident in cases of
taking advantage under the kafala system. By comparing the regulations of the
Philippines (OWWA) Bangladesh and court decisions in Mexico this paper suggests
ways to improve the situation of guest workers, in the GCC and to help Indian
and Sri Lankan embassies share their authority and responsibilities.[1]
Keywords: Administrative Law, Consular
Protection, Migrant Workers, Gulf Cooperation Council GCC, emigrate, SLBFE,
MADAD, Procedural Fairness, Kafala System.
1. Introduction and Contextual
Landscape
The
trans-regional migration corridor connecting South Asia and Gulf Cooperation
Council (GCC) countries Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman and the
United Arab Emirates is one of the mostdense, economically critical temporary
contractual labor flows in the world. India and Sri Lanka are the two major
sending states whose national economies are significantly dependent on
remittances from the Gulf. However, the immigration and employment framework
regulating the arrival of these workers is dominated by the traditional kafala
sponsorship regime, an immigration system linking the expatriate worker’s
residency, mobility and job-changing to an individual employer kafeel.[2]
Under kafala, bargaining imbalances
in labor relations between (often construction, transport, sanitation, domestic
or care) migrants and employers often result in rights violations by the
latter, including passport confiscation, contract replacement, wage theft or
arrears, abuse, and false reporting of “huroob” (absconding), which may lead to
immediate arrest, administrative detention, and deportation without trial. A
key role in these cases is the diplomatic protection provided by the migrant’s
home state through its diplomatic and consular missions in the host country,
which can act as the sole link between the worker and the host government.
Yet studies and policy literature on
this topic have focused too narrowly on either international diplomatic
practices or the idea of protective consular intervention as an act of
humanitarian paternalism. By contrast, this article analyzes this issue through
the framework of administrative law. The author argues that consular
interventions are always administrative acts that must be evaluated in terms of
the administrative law principles of duty of care, decision-making, procedural
fairness, transparency, and remedies.
To begin with, a consular post of
the migrant’s home country is an administrative organ of that country’s
government. By managing dispute registers, providing welfare grants, checking
up on employers, or certifying emergency certificates, its staff performs
public administrative functions and must act in accordance with the rule of
law. Therefore, when exercising its authority, the consulate cannot follow an
ultra vires model of action that is completely unaccountable and unreviewable
but must adopt a model based on administrative law’s foundational principles.
2. Conceptual Framework: Grounding
Consular Functions in Administrative Law
Consular protection takes place at
the interface between international public law and municipal administrative
law. Internationally, the basis is the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations,
1963 VCCR. According to Articles 5a and 5e of the VCCR, the basic consular
functions include:[3]
·
"Protecting in the receiving State the interests of
the sending State and of its nationals, both individuals and bodies corporate,
within the limits permitted by international law;" and
·
"Helping and assisting nationals, both individuals and
corporate bodies, of the sending State."
Traditionally, international law doctrines
have recognized that Article 5 grants jurisdictional privileges to states
rather than private individuals. In addition, Anglo-American and Commonwealth
administrative law jurisprudence long established the doctrine of consular
nonreliability’s judicial presumption that the acts of the consular officers in
the host country are by their very nature either within the realm of the king’s
prerogatives or the foreign affairs of the state, hence beyond domestic judicial
review. Contemporary administrative law practices, however, have significantly
narrowed this absolute immunity from the jurisdiction in instances where the
ministerial or statutory acts of consul in question are concerned. It is now a
common practice that ministerial or purely statutory functions performed in the
host country, even those traditionally associated with managing welfare funds,
dispute settlement, or emergency relief services, may no longer be considered
solely as foreign policy matters if they affect constitutional rights or
require judicial intervention to protect them.
The Five Pillars of Consular Administrative Accountability
To evaluate consular performance
beyond diplomatic rhetoric, this study formulates a fivetier administrative
legal matrix:[4]
1. The Public Duty of Care is the legal
obligation imposed upon sovereign authorities to take affirmative measures to
safeguard the life, liberty, and personal security of their nationals exposed
to helpless conditions through discriminatory municipal legal structures
overseas.
2.
Reasoned
decision-making, a duty to give reasons for decisions, is the institutional
responsibility ensuring that rejections of legal assistance, fund
disbursements, and intervention requests are not denied through ardent
bureaucracies.
3.
Procedural
fairness or natural justice requires that a fair and accessible process is
applied by states in handling grievances, providing that distressed and
detained workers are provided with an opportunity to respond and access to case
details.
4.
Transparency
entails that the state is obliged to provide information on its charters,
complaint resolution statistics, funding audits on welfare trust funds, and
bilateral negotiations.
5. Finally, a remedial or compensatory
duty is the obligation of the state to provide legal redress, restitution, and
interim financial relief when administrative delays, inaction, or mission
execution injure migrant workers.
3. Comparative Statutory
and Institutional Architectures[5]
|
Structural Dimension
|
Republic of India
|
Democratic Socialist Republic of
Sri Lanka
|
|
Primary Governing Legislation
|
The Emigration Act, 1983 Act No. 31 of 1983; Passport Act,
1967.
|
Sri Lanka Bureau of Foreign
Employment SLBFE Act, No. 21 of 1985 as amended.
|
|
Central Regulatory & Operating Portals
|
emigrate System: Online employer accreditation, contract vetting, and
emigration clearance tracking.
MADAD & CPGRAMS: Centralized digital grievance
redressal portals.
|
SLBFE Database: Mandatory predeparture worker
registration and insurance verification; decentralized embassy hotlines and
emergency contact networks.
|
|
Operational Consular Framework
|
Embassy/Consulate Labour Wings headed by dedicated
First/Second Secretaries Labour; Community Welfare Wings.
|
Embassy Labour Sections and Safe
Shelters Suraksha Illam, operating under combined MEA and SLBFE
jurisdiction.
|
|
Dedicated Welfare Financing Mechanism
|
Indian Community Welfare Fund ICWF: Funded via consular service
levies, budgetary allocations, and charitable contributions.
|
Workers' Welfare Fund WWF: Administered by the SLBFE;
financed directly through mandatory predeparture migrant registration levies
and recruitment agency licensing fees.
|
|
Primary Operational Modality
|
Procedural dispute mediation, portal-based logging, formal
liaison with host country labour ministries, formal GOSI/insurance
processing.
|
Expedited repatriation,
humanitarian shelter sheltering, emergency exit facilitation, discretionary
ministerial intervention.
|
|
External Accountability Channels
|
High legislative scrutiny via Lok Sabha/Rajya Sabha
Starred Questions; constitutional writ jurisdiction under Articles 32 and
226.
|
Parliamentary oversight via
Sectoral Oversight Committees; administrative accountability under the Sri
Lankan Human Rights Commission SLHRC.
|
India’s regulation of its overseas
labor migration is governed by the Emigration Act, 1983 which provisions a
preventive bureaucratic filter – Emigration Check Required ECR – for
blue-collar workers who have not completed secondary schooling. The launch of
emigrate portal in 2014 signified the shift towards digital governance which
obliged foreign employers in the Gulf Cooperation Council to get verified
before they could hire Indian nationals. In tandem, the Ministry of External
Affairs MEA set up the MADAD in 2015 along with the Centralized Public
Grievance Redress and Monitoring System CPGRAMS that set up complaint records
in transnational labor disputes. Between January 2024 to November 2025, over
16,000 complaints were logged across the missions in the GCC with the Saudi
Arabia reporting over 3,000 cases.
Sri
Lanka’s system of overseas labor migration regulation is distinct with its
specialized Sri Lanka Bureau of Foreign Employment Act No. 21 of 1985. In
contrast to India’s MEA led governance model, Sri Lanka set up a
quasi-independent statutory authority (the SLBE) for overseas employment
promotion and rights protection. The Bureau operates an insurance backed
welfare scheme which provides coverage for death, disability, and medical
expenses abroad for migrant workers so long as they remain registered. In overseas
states such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and UAE, the insurance provides safe
shelters (often referred to as Suraksha Illam) managed by embassy labour
attachés that accommodate female domestic workers who are victims of employer
violence. However, Sri Lanka’s migration governance is characterized by the
concentration of decision-making in the hands of the Minister of Foreign
Employment resulting in informal dispute settlement mechanisms for labor
related grievances.
4. Empirical and Doctrinal Case
Studies: Administrative Responses in Action
4.1 Indian Consular Response in Saudi Arabia: The Remedial
Divide and the Limits of Judicial Review
The situation with the functioning
of India’s consular protection in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is marked with
considerable duality. On the one hand, Consular Labour Wings excellently
perform their duties related to processing the claims for postmortem welfare
payments to the family members of deceased migrant workers. On the other hand,
there are serious concerns regarding the effectiveness of the first-line state
defense mechanism in responding to the needs of the living, distressed
employees. For example, in the case of K. Thankamani v. The Ministry of
External Affairs, an Indian migrant worker who was illegally terminated,
deprived of compensation for his work, and deported to his home country, filed
a complaint with the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner requested from the
court to issue a writ of mandamus to the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and
the Indian Embassy in Riyadh to reimburse him for the expenses which he had
incurred due to the violation of his rights as a worker in Saudi Arabia. The
Kerala High Court refused to grant the writ, reasoning that Indian diplomatic
posts have no legal obligation to compensate the migrant worker for the losses
suffered due to the kingdom’s labor laws, unless there is a bilateral treaty
which would impose such responsibility on the Indian side.[6]
The jurisprudence of Thankamani reveals
that the state's responsibility to the victim's family is not absolute; the
state was willing to spend resources to return the dead to their homeland but
considered the living who have suffered great losses of earnings as a
consequence of the state's actions to be a political issue, not a consular
obligation.
4.2 The Parens Patriae Intervention: Reimagining
Extraterritorial Constitutional Duties
On the other hand, in the landmark
judgment of Malarvizhi @ Kottaithai v. The Secretary to Government of India and
Others, the Madras High Court took the doctrine of administrative
accountability to an entirely new level. Prior to this ruling, the Court was
faced with the deplorable situation of a family, whose sole breadwinner had
died under mysterious circumstances in a foreign land. The Court, while
exercising the ancient doctrine of parens patriae (the sovereign as parent of
the nation), held that the constitutional rights as enshrined in Article 21
(Right to Life and Personal Liberty) and the sovereign duty of care cannot
abruptly come to an end at the geographical frontiers of the Indian Republic.[7]
Critically, the Madras High Court
instructed the Union Government to develop an institutional and comprehensive
legal aid and assistance policy for Indian nationals working overseas. By
explicitly linking the failure of the consulate to the dereliction of
constitutional duties, the Malarvizhi judgment provides an indispensable
precedent, which illustrates that the inaction of the state in foreign
jurisdictions can be challenged before domestic High Courts through the writ
jurisdiction.
4.3 Sri Lankan Domestic Detainees in Riyadh: Humanitarian
Repatriation versus Rights Enforcement
The problem
of Sri Lankan Consular's protection is extremely demonstrated by the case of
administrative detention in Riyadh during 2020-2021. Human rights organizations
such as Amnesty International reported that dozens of Sri Lankan women who work
as domestic workers were kept in Saudi Arabia's deportation departments for
eight to eighteen months. These people were forced to go to authorities due to
the abusers' physical assault, nutrition deprivation, and wage theft. However,
despite the cruel treatment, they had to stay in the kingdom as their
deportation was delayed, causing severe mental trauma. The issue raised
significant public and governmental attention, leading to a rapid resolution.[8]
The
resolution of the crisis by administrative channels is illustrative of the
priorities of the Sri Lankan model. By way of bilateral negotiations between
ministerial representatives of the SLBFE and the Sri Lankan Embassy, the mass
waiver of exit fines and physical repatriation of over 100 women in mid2021 was
achieved. Though effective in delivering humanitarian relief, the intervention
was conducted outside of formal dispute channels. Though repatriated
physically, the workers were not administratively or judicially adjudicated for
their claims for accrued backwages, breach of contract, or physical assault.
The Sri Lankan consular model therefore substituted logistical repatriation for
the legal enforcement of rights, treating the physical exit of the worker as an
administrative resolution of the dispute.
5. Critical Assessment of Systemic
Accountability Deficiencies
1. The lack of legally enforceable
service charters: While both countries publish consular charters, these are
aspirational and hortatory only. India and Sri Lanka do not put time sensitive
guarantees by statute, which embassies must enforce when an employee is in
jail, a dispute mediation is due or emergency shelter is required.
2.
Asymmetry
in welfare fund utilisation: There is an clear administrative slant in both
ICWF guidelines and the SLBFE’s Workers’ Welfare Fund towards repatriating
remains, providing medical evacuation and flight tickets. The funds make no
provision to directly pay off dues, or cover the costs of continuing to live
till a labour dispute is concluded, or to engage local counsel in case a worker
has to take legal action in the host country.
3.
Discretion
with no oversight: Consular officers have wide discretion in deciding who among
employees needs to be pushed and who can be dropped back to their host country
with little or no redress. Where an embassy declines to take up a case against
an employer or refuses to fund emergency legal aid, the worker has no
administrative forum or independent ombudsman to appeal to.
4. Informational asymmetry and
recordkeeping: While India’s parliamentary reports collate figures on
complaints received, they do not show what percentage of wages were reclaimed
in each case, the average time a complaint took to resolve or how many times a
mission was inspected. In Sri Lanka records are largely anecdotal with no
information that can indicate trends to lawmakers and workers.
6. Global Comparative Insights:
Lessons from the Philippines, Bangladesh, and Mexico
● To overcome the existing
limitations, the Indian and Sri Lankan models should be evaluated through the
lens of overseas labour governance best practices applied in other countries:
●
The
Philippines: Statutory welfare and unified governance: The Republic of the Philippines is
considered to be one of the global leaders in overseas employment governance
due to the existence of the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA),
which is funded by mandatory employer/worker contributions (Republic Act 8042,
as amended by Republic Act 10022). Philippine embassies establish Migrant
Workers and Other Overseas Filipinos Resource Centers (MWOFRCs) with dedicated
Labour Attachés who provide assistance to overseas workers. Notably, there is a
“Joint and Several Liability” doctrine, meaning that in case of a contract
violation, domestic private recruitment agencies in Manila are held directly
responsible in front of national courts. This allows overseas Filipino workers
to seek redress without having to resort to litigation in the foreign state.[9]
●
Bangladesh’s
approach to migrant
protection is characterized by the Bureau of Manpower, Employment and Training
BMET, under Ministry of Expatriates’ Welfare and Overseas Employment’s
centralized digital database, which records complaints from migrants before
departure, during their stay abroad, and upon return. The state’s limited
resources are directed towards ensuring that migrant worker disputes are
resolved through mandatory arbitration between recruiting agencies and workers
at the moment of return, thus providing an accessible formal channel for
reclaiming unpaid wages.
● Mexico’s practice of migrant
protection is centered
around the idea of external consulados as institutions that provide human and
constitutional rights to the migrants in the US. Mexico’s approach is largely
informed by the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights Advisory Opinion OC16/99
and the International Court of Justice Avena and Other Mexican Nationals cases.
As a result, Mexican courts and external policy are guided by the understanding
of consulados notification and protection functions as individual rights, with
external offices being empowered to provide their staff with external legal
counsel in order to actively promote their interests in the host state.
7. Comprehensive Reform Matrix:
Operationalizing the Rule of Law[10]
|
Reform Dimension
|
Proposed Legislative & Administrative Action
|
Institutional Implementing Agency
|
|
|
Enact binding statutory service codes detailing strict
timelines: 24hour mandatory contact for physical distress; 48-hour consular
visitation for detainees; written reasons for dispute case closures.
|
Parliament India/Sri Lanka;
Ministry of External Affairs / SLBFE.
|
|
2. Independent Consular Ombudsman
|
Establish an independent, extraterritorial Migrant Labour
Ombudsman empowered to review complaints of consular administrative
negligence, denial of assistance, or unreasonable delay.
|
National Human Rights Commissions;
Parliamentary Standing Committees.
|
|
3. Wage Theft Compensation Funds
|
Restructure the ICWF and SLBFE Welfare Funds to establish
statutory "Wage Theft Recovery Guarantees," providing upfront
financial relief for unpaid wages pending legal resolution.
|
MEA Welfare Division; SLBFE Board
of Directors.
|
|
4. Upgraded Bilateral MoUs
|
Incorporate mandatory consular access protocols into
bilateral MoUs with GCC states, mandating immediate host state electronic
notification of worker arrests, hospitalizations, or huroob notices.
|
Bilateral Joint Working Groups
India/Sri Lanka & GCC Ministries of Labour.
|
|
5. Joint and Several Legal Liability
|
Amend domestic emigration statutes to mirror the
Philippine model, establishing joint and several financial liability for
registered recruitment agencies in cases of overseas contract substitution
and wage theft.
|
India’s Ministry of Labour and
Employment; Sri Lanka’s Ministry of Foreign Employment.
|
8. Conclusion
The
administrative procedures related to consular protection in the Gulf differ
significantly from ordinary foreign diplomatic practices. They are the
cornerstone of the constitutional and human rights of millions of vulnerable
workers. As the comparison indicates, although India has developed
sophisticated digital tracking tools and Sri Lanka has focused on emergency
repatriation, both regard consular protection as an exercise of sovereign
executive discretion, not a public administrative responsibility.[12]
Migrant workers have the right to
protection under both the constitution and international law. In the context of
the choice between a benign and an exploitative scenario, the difference is
that the sovereign diplomatic mission of the migrant workers’ state protects
its agents through clearly defined statutory, procedural, judicial, and
remedial criteria. By establishing service charters, control mechanisms, and
wage protection funds and by relying on innovative approaches such as the joint
liability of recruiters, India and Sri Lanka would be able to mitigate the
discretion of diplomatic missions in favor of migrants’ rule of law, thereby
transforming the ad-hoc practice of consular protection into a formalized,
transparent, and institutionalized public service..[13]
References and Doctrinal Sources[14]
1. Vienna Convention on Consular
Relations, 1963 596 U.N.T.S 261 entered into force Mar. 19, 1967, particularly
Article 5.
2.
The
Emigration Act, 1983 Act No. 31 of 1983, Government of India.
3.
Sri
Lanka Bureau of Foreign Employment Act, No. 21 of 1985 as amended, Parliament
of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.
4.
Malarvizhi
@ Kottaithai v. The Secretary to Government of India and Others W.P. MD No.
12920 of 2021 Madras High Court.
5.
K.
Thankamani v. Ministry of External Affairs W.P. C No. 18234 of 2012 Kerala High
Court.
6.
Patel
v. Reno, 134 F.3d 929 9th Cir. 1997 US jurisprudence evaluating the limits of
the consular no reviewability doctrine.
7.
Amidi
v. Chertoff, 558 F. Supp. 2d 1292 N.D. Ga. 2008 challenging arbitrary
administrative inaction by consular entities.
8.
Avena
and Other Mexican Nationals Mexico v. United States of America, Judgment,
I.C.J. Reports 2004, p. 12.
9.
InterAmerican
Court of Human Rights, The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the
Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law, Advisory Opinion OC16/99
Oct. 1, 1999.
10. Ministry of External Affairs,
Government of India, Lok Sabha Starred Question No. 3279 answered on August 8,
2025 regarding Grievances Received on MADAD and CPGRAMS Portals.
11. Ministry of External Affairs,
Government of India, Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 5694 answered on March
20, 2026 regarding Bilateral LabourMoUs with West Asian Countries.
12. Republic Act No. 8042 Migrant
Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, as amended by Republic Act No.
10022 2010, Republic of the Philippines.
13. Amnesty International, ``Saudi
Arabia: Dozens of Sri Lankan Women Arbitrarily Detained for Months in Cruel
Conditions'', Human Rights Briefing April 2021.
14. International Labour Organization
ILO, Employer Migrant Worker Relationships: Kafala System Reforms and Emerging
Trends in the GCC, Regional Office for Arab States 2023.
15. Ruhs, M., The Price of Rights:
Regulating International Labor Migration,PrincetonUniversity Press 2013.
[1]International legal framework: Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations, 1963, art. 5; International Labor
Organization, EmployerMigrant Worker Relationships: Kafala System Reforms and
Emerging Trends in the GCC (2023).
[2]International Labour Organization,
Employer–Migrant Worker Relationships: Kafala System Reforms and Emerging
Trends in the GCC, Regional Office for Arab States (2023); M. Ruhs, The Price
of Rights: Regulating International Labor Migration (Princeton University Press
2013).
[3]Vienna Convention on Consular Relations,
1963, 596 U.N.T.S. 261, art. 5(a), (e).
[4]The five-pillar matrix is the analytical
frameworkproposed by the author forthiscomparative study; see also Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations, art. 5, on consular functions.
[5]The Emigration Act, 1983, No. 31 of 1983
(India); Sri Lanka Bureau of Foreign Employment Act, No. 21 of 1985, as amended.
[6]K. Thankamani v. Ministry of External
Affairs, W.P.(C) No. 18234 of 2012 (Kerala High Court), as cited in the paper’s
references. The case description here follows the supplied manuscript.
[7]Malarvizhi @ Kottaithai v. The Secretary
to Government of India & Others, W.P. (MD) No. 12920 of 2021 (Madras High
Court), as cited in the paper’s references. The case description here follows
the supplied manuscript.
[8]Amnesty International, “Saudi Arabia:
Dozens of Sri Lankan Women Arbitrarily Detained for Months in Cruel Conditions”
(Apr. 2021).
[9]Republic Act No. 8042, Migrant Workers and
Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 (Philippines), as amended by Republic Act No.
10022 (2010).
[10]The proposed service timelines and
oversight mechanisms are recommendations advanced by the author, rather than
existing statutory requirements.
[11]These reform measures are proposed
institutional changes for consideration; they should not be read as adescription
of the law currently in force.
[12]Vienna Convention on Consular Relations,
1963, art. 5; International Labour Organization, Employer–Migrant Worker
Relationships: Kafala System Reforms and Emerging Trends in the GCC (2023).
[13]International Court of Justice, Avena and
Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J.
Reports 2004, p. 12; Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Advisory Opinion
OC-16/99 (Oct. 1, 1999).
[14]The works listed in the References and
Doctrinal Sources section are the manuscript’s principal authorities. Verify
all case citations, dates, and empirical figures against the original sources
before submission.
How to Cite This Article
ELAKIYYANGNANABARATHI, PROF. A. BERTILA, ADMINISTRATIVE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR PROTECTION OF MIGRANT WORKERS: A COMPARATIVE LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS OF THE CONSULAR PROTECTION SYSTEMS IN INDIA AND SRI LANKA ACROSS GCC STATES., White Black Legal – International Law Journal, ISSN: 2581-8503, Vol. Volume 4, Issue VOLUME 4 ISSUE 2, October 2026, pp. 1494-1508. Available at: https://www.whiteblacklegal.co.in/details/administrative-accountability-for-protection-of-migrant-workers-a-comparative-legal-and-institutional-analysis-of-the-consular-protection-systems-in-india-and-sri-lanka-across-gcc-states-by-elakiyyangnanabarathi-and-prof-a-bertila
Author & Publication Record
Authors: ELAKIYYANGNANABARATHI & PROF. A. BERTILA
Registration ID: 107223 | Published Paper ID: WBL7223 & WBL7224
Year: Oct- 2026 | Volume: 4 | Issue: 2
Approved ISSN: 2581-8503 | Country: Delhi, India
Page No.: 1494-1508
Full Text Preview
Open in New Tab
Copied