Open Access Research Article
White Black Legal – International Law Journal · ISSN 2581-8503
The Interface between International Refugee Protection Standards and Domestic Public Policy in India: A Global Justice Perspective
Read the Full Research Paper
Access the complete open-access article in PDF format. No login is required.
Abstract
THE
INTERFACE BETWEEN INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE PROTECTION STANDARDS AND DOMESTIC
PUBLIC POLICY IN INDIA: A GLOBAL JUSTICE PERSPECTIVE
AUTHORED
BY - SHEIK SHINY HANEEFA
ABSTRACT
Protection
of refugees is a complicated nexus of international human rights principles,
international refugee protection principles, and national public policy
considerations. India has a long history of providing shelter to people coming
from various persecuted communities, conflicts, or politically unstable
countries, despite the country being non-signatory to the 1951 Convention
Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. It means that the
refugees in India are covered by constitutional laws, policies of the
government and the judiciary mainly in terms of immigration laws. Such a fragmented
structure leads to ambiguity about refugee status and rights. This research is
based on the relationship between international standards for refugees’
protection and national public policy in India through a global justice
approach, focusing particularly on non-refoulement, minimum standards of
treatment, non-discrimination, life, and liberty. It examines the impact of
international law on Indian judicial decisions in the absence of ratification
of treaties through some case laws like State of Arunachal Pradesh v.
Khudiram Chakma, Louis De Raedt v. Union of India, Mohammad
Salimullah v. Union of India and Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan. The
paper highlights the ongoing conflict between humanitarian protection on the
one hand and national security and sovereignty on the other. The study
recommends a comprehensive domestic refugee law that provides for equal
protection while at the same addressing India’s national security and sovereign
concerns by balancing them with humanitarian values and global justice.
INTRODUCTION
In
the modern era of the twenty-first century, the phenomenon of refugees crossing
national boundaries has emerged as one of the most important humanitarian and
legal concerns. War, religious persecution, ethnic conflict, political
instability, displacement due to natural calamities, and human rights
violations have led many people to seek protection from outside their states.
Although there is recognition of the need for the protection of refugees
through a comprehensive legal framework under international law, its
enforcement depends entirely on the domestic legal system. Thus, refugee
protection becomes one of the most obvious intersections of international law
and domestic policies. The interface is especially complicated for India since
it has always received refugees from neighbouring nations, even though it has
not ratified the “1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees nor has it ratified
the 1967 Protocol to that convention”. In India, there is ambiguity regarding
the protection of refugees, as there is no codified legal framework. The
country regulates refugees through constitutional interpretations, government
policies, immigration laws such as the Foreigners Act, 1946, the Passport
(Entry into India) Act, 1920, the Citizenship Act, 1955, and internationally
accepted humanitarian principles. Unlike India, other nations have established
a dedicated framework for refugees.
Despite
India’s historical tradition of welcoming refugees, the absence of a
comprehensive legal framework governing refugee status leaves many individuals
in vulnerable situations, such as arrests and detentions, and facing
difficulties getting access to health facilities, education and employment.[1] The Indian framework
governs only the entry, stay, and departure of foreigners from India and fails
to recognise refugees as a distinct category of individuals; as a result, they
may lose the protection afforded by international standards.
The
conflict between humanitarian obligations on the one hand and sovereign choice
on the other is the central problem in the governance of refugees in India. The
extent of legal recognition and protection provided to refugees varies
depending on their nationality, resulting in inconsistent application of
humanitarian law. This raises an issue of the equality principle in the context
of India’s commitment to global justice.
The
present study thus attempts to analyze the impact of international refugee law
on domestic public policy in India even in the absence of treaty ratification.
The study will analyze the relevant provisions of the constitution, laws, and
executive policies concerning the protection of refugees and determine their
conformity to the international legal principles. By understanding the
interaction between international laws and domestic decision-making in terms of
global justice, this research would be able to judge if there is an appropriate
balance between humanitarian concerns and issues of sovereignty and national
security within the Indian refugee regime.
INTERNATIONAL
REFUGEE PROTECTION STANDARDS
The
international refugee status is based on humanitarian principles. During the
post-World War II period, refugee laws were developed to help the displaced
European people.[2] The international
obligation regarding refugees may have been derived from customary
international law and international treaties such as the United Nations
Convention on the Status of Refugees, 1951[3]
and the Protocol to the Refugee Convention, 1967[4].
Some of these international obligations are those of non-refoulement,
non-extradition, non-expulsion, and minimum standards of treatment. United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is the United Nations body that
is the custodian of the “Refugee Convention 1951 and the 1967 Protocol”. This
organization monitors the performance of states in relation to their
obligations to the refugees. International migration has now become an integral
part of interstate relations because of globalization and economic and social
interdependencies. Migrant workers, refugees, and families who migrate
contribute to development and international economic relations. Therefore,
international migration cannot be controlled or stopped using the measures
taken unilaterally by individual states.[5] It requires
international cooperation and shared responsibilities in such a way that state
sovereignty and control of its borders do not go against human rights and
refugee rights.
The
first international instrument that deals with refugees is the “1951 Convention
Relating to the Status of Refugees”. The convention establishes standards
through definitions and outlines the fundamental rights and protection that
states should provide to refugees, which, to some extent, are reflected in the
laws and policies of domestic countries all over the world.[6] A definition of a
refugee according to the convention is a person who happens to be outside his
country of origin because he has a reasonable fear of being persecuted on
account of race, religion, nationality, belonging to a particular social group,
or political opinion and cannot avail of the protection of the country.[7] The most important principle
in the Convention is non-refoulement, which is an exceptional limitation on a
state's sovereign power to send aliens back to the frontiers of their own
countries. In addition, the Convention has laid down certain other principles
related to non-discrimination, prevention of punishment for illegal entry where
justified, international cooperation, and expulsions.[8]
The 1967 Protocol removed the geographical and temporal restrictions consistent
with the original Convention and made the concept of refugees more universal in
nature.[9]
·
Principle of non-refoulement
The
non-refoulement principle provided in the Refugee Convention under Article 33,[10] does not allow any state to
deport, expel, or return the refugee against his will to his home territory
where his life, liberty, and freedom are under a possible threat. In order to
protect the basic human rights of a refugee, the principle of non-refoulement
has been made by the states. The non-refoulement principle is based on two
concepts such as “international community” and “common humanity”. Article 7 of
the ICCPR which prohibits cruel and torture and inhuman or degrading treatment
imposes an obligation on the states not to expose a person to torture or
inhuman behavior or punishment through the process of extradition, expulsion or
refoulement.[11]
REFUGEE
PROTECTION IN INDIA
India
has been a shelter for many refugees over time. The position of India regarding
the treatment of refugees in foreign countries becomes controversial because
India is not a signatory to the Refugee convention and its protocol. However,
several international and regional treaties and conventions, such as the UN
Declaration on Territorial Asylum, ICCPR, UDHR have been ratified by India.[12] In addition to
this, India is a member of the “Executive Committee” of UNHCR, which manages
and approves all the assistance programs of UNHCR materials but not as an
endorsement of the work that UNHCR does. In light of this fact, it is quite
evident that India upholds international treaties concerning the treatment of
individuals living within its territory; however, it prefers to follow its own
procedure for handling refugees residing in the country, allowing little scope
for the UNHCR to intervene except in emergencies such as “the displacement of
Chakma tribals from Bangladesh and refugees from Afghanistan or the Autonomous
Region of Tibet”.
When
it comes to implementing laws with regard to refugees, laws that are broadly
applicable to "foreigners" come into effect. Presently, there is no statutory law
regarding ‘refugees’ per se. Instead, conditions of foreigners are regulated by
various important legislative Acts such as, “the Foreigners Act, 1946, The
Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939, and the Foreigners Order, 1948”. The
Foreigners Act, 1946, is the statute most closely linked to refugees in that it
regulates foreigners entering, staying, and leaving India. A foreigner is
defined as anyone who is not an Indian citizen under section 2 of the
Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939.[13]
Foreigners include other categories of people except refugees. The wide
interpretation of ‘foreigners’ in this regard is seen throughout the Act, where
much greater emphasis is placed on national security and governmental power
than on refugee protection. And further under Seventh Schedule Acts several
post-independence laws dealt with specific cases of displacement, but these
were case-based or community-based and not a policy framework for refugees as
such. The Reason why India is not a signatory to the convention is that
historically it has been inclined towards keeping itself flexible in
formulating its policies towards refugees especially in view of national
security issues.[14]
·
National Model Refugee Law
While
India has not ratified refugee Convention nor established an effective domestic
refugee protection mechanism, some efforts have been undertaken to modify the
immigration law of India to incorporate the necessary provisions. A model law
on refugees and asylum seekers was drafted in 1995 under the chairmanship of
“Justice P.N. Bhagwati”, former chief justice of the Indian Supreme Court as
part of “the Regional Consultations on Refugees and Migratory Movements in
South Asia” Initiative.[15] The Public
Interest Legal Support and Research Center revised the model law in 2006,
naming it the Refugees and Asylum Seekers (Protection) Bill. However, these
changes did nothing to address the security establishment's concerns.
Ultimately, neither bill was even introduced to the Parliament and did not
receive any support from the Indian Cabinet.
·
Role of UNHR In India
In
refugee protection United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) plays a
significant role as it helps in refugees and assist in the process of process
of protection and resettlement.[16] UNHCR is important in
determination of refugee status of certain asylum-seekers in India. The
judiciary at all levels usually considers the assessment of UNHCR when making
their decisions. This has enabled refugee certification by UNHCR to play a key
role in stopping deportation. In addition, there have been instances where the
courts have stayed the deportation proceedings and provided interim bail that
allows the individual seeking asylum to apply to UNHCR. Thus, the operations of
UNHCR in India play a vital role in India’s refugee regime as well as in
determining the refugee claims in India. However, India has always been
hesitant in making any Country Agreement with UNHCR. India adopts a different
procedure for different refugee groups. Some groups are directly covered by the
policies of the Ministry of Home Affairs and not through UNHCR. If a refugee is
covered by any policy of the Indian government, UNHCR cannot decide whether
that person is a refugee or not. Nevertheless, despite being recognized by UNHCR,
it does not necessarily give them legal protection within the domestic laws of
India.[17]
INTERFACE
BETWEEN INTERNATIONAL LAW
AND MUNICIPAL LAW
Indian
judiciary has cast the “shadow of refugee law.”[18] The Indian
judiciary has expanded the rights of refugees through constitutional provisions
in the absence of any legislation on refugees. India had an obligation to
adhere to international law under the Constitution of India. This is stated as
one of the fundamental principles of governance enumerated in Article 51 in
chapter IV of Constitution. Article 51A imposes a duty upon all citizens to
exhibit compassion.[19] Although these provisions
cannot be enforced, the courts have relied on them extensively to incorporate
“international human rights standards” at the domestic level. It is an
exception from the conservative approach that international duties and responsibilities
are recognised as long as they are incorporated into municipal laws. The
Supreme Court in Vishaka & Others v. State of Rajasthan & Others
that any international treaty that is not repugnant to the fundamental rights
of citizens and is consistent with its spirit of the constitution shall be
invoked to broaden their scope and purpose.[20]
Article 51(c) promotes respect for international law and treaty obligations,[21] whereas Article 253 gives
the power to Parliament to pass any legislation for the implementation of
international conventions.[22]
In
Tractor Export, Moscow v. M/S Tarapore & Co. the supreme
court held that when there is a legal gap or ambiguity in the domestic
legislation, the court should adopt international law; however, international
law cannot prevail over the clear intention of the legislature. Therefore, in
regard to the protection of refugees, Indian courts could rely on the
international conventions on refugees and human rights despite the absence of
refugee legislation in India.[23] In Louis De Raedt v.
Union of India, the Supreme Court has once again clarified that the
right to the “protection of life and liberty” under Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution is applicable to foreign nationals. In such an event, the logical
course of action for the court would be to interpret this provision to mean
that it does not allow foreign nationals to be sent into a place where there is
a threat to their life and personal liberty.[24]
In
State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Khudiram Chakma, the Supreme Court
has taken an active stance in the protection of refugees, it gave direction to
the State to execute the orders of the court in order to protect “the life and
liberty of the Chakma refugees” in Arunachal Pradesh who have been threatened.
In this way, both the political and economic problems of the Chakma refugees
have been acknowledged. It was further ordered that, during the period when the
applications of the refugees for citizenship were being examined, the refugees
could not be expelled from Arunachal Pradesh.[25]
Similarly, in Dr Malavika Karlekar
v Union of India in 1992, the Supreme Court restrained the deportation
of refugees from Myanmar till the time of hearing their application for refugee
status by UNHCR.[26] Also, in other cases, the
court has adopted a supervisory role by stating that refugees should not be
deported without notification of the court itself.
In
Mohammad Salimullah v. Union of India and Nandita
Haksar v. State of Manipur, both the Supreme Court and a high court
issued orders regarding the deportation of Rohingya refugees respectively in
the year 2021. In Mohammad Salimullah, the court held that India may deport
foreign citizens; however, deportation should be carried out according to the
procedure established by law.[27] The recent High Court
decision with regard to Rohingya refugees has been made by the Manipur High
Court in Nandita Haksar (2021). This judgement is completely opposed to that of
the Supreme Court decision in Mohammad Salimullah, where Article 21 (right to
life) and Article 14 (right to equality) apply to all and not merely to
citizens. The Court held that Myanmar nationals must not be deemed as ordinary
illegal immigrants without giving due consideration to the factors which
compelled them to leave their country. The Court made a distinction between an
ordinary migrant and a refugee. It acknowledged that a refugee is somebody who
leaves his own country due to factors like war or persecution. It held that
Salimullah is an interim order and, therefore, there is no binding ratio in the
case under Article 141 of the Constitution. There was also a distinction of
facts as the issues of national security involved in the Salimullah case were
not present in the Manipur case.[28]
In
the case of Zothansangpui v. State of Manipur, the Guwahati High
Court had made it clear that refugees have the right not to be forcibly removed
from India when there is an extreme danger to their lives.[29]
The courts in the cases of Nuang Maung Mye Nyant v. Govt. of India[30]
and Shar Aung v. Govt. of India[31] stated that even
those refugees who had been charged with illegal entry should be issued exit
permits so that they may leave the country. In Syed Ata Mohammadi vs.
Union of India, the Bombay High Court held that “there is no
question of deporting the Iranian refugee to Iran, as he has already been
recognized as a refugee by the UNHCR. It was also held that the refugee could
travel to any other country without any restrictions.”[32]
Supreme Court of India in the case of Hans Muller of Nurenburg v.
Superintendent,[33] granted “absolute and unfettered” power to
the Government to deport the aliens. In the case of Ktaer Abbas Habib Al
Qutaifi v. Union of India it was held by the High Court of Gujarat that
the principle of non-refoulement protects against deportation of an individual
in a situation where life and liberty of a person depend upon his race,
religion, nationality or political affiliation.[34]
Though
the courts can play a constructive role, the protection provided by them cannot
be a replacement for the comprehensive refugee law. Cases are often decided on
an individual basis, which makes it impossible to lay down any principles or
guidelines. Judicial intervention may only offer some kind of temporary
protection to individual refugees but not a consistent system for the country.[35]
Therefore,
the protection of refugee in india is fragmented. Instead of one legislative
statute, different constitutional provisions, legislations, executive
decisions, and judicial precedents all together determines the rights of
refugees.
INDIA’S
REFUGEE POLICY AND THE UNFULFILLED OBJECTIVES OF GLOBAL JUSTICE
The
lack of refugee legislation could pose issues relating to the coherence and
consistency of India’s approach towards protecting and providing assistance to
refugees residing in its territory. This is likely to raise concerns about the
readiness of India to take its rightful share of global responsibility towards
offering refuge to persecuted individuals. The international community is
likely to keenly observe how India responds to situations concerning refugees
in order to determine the degree of India’s dedication to humanitarian ideals
and principles. Lack of a specific legal framework for refugees could also
affect India’s participation in international discourses and cooperation
regarding refugee-related matters.[36] Other states and
international organizations may be more willing to cooperate and establish
partnerships with countries that have already developed effective legal
framework regarding refugee protection, as it proves a nation’s commitment to
the maintenance of human rights and provision of assistance for people in need.
Therefore, the lack of refugee law in India can make it harder to establish
collaboration and partnership with other states and organizations regarding the
problem of global refugee crisis and work on finding sustainable solutions for
the problem. Moreover, the absence of an appropriate refugee law could put into
question India’s compliance with international standards and conventions,
specifically developed to protect refugees.
In
the case of India, it becomes a problem when one must strike a balance between
its sovereign right to regulate the entry and stay of foreigners into the
country and its obligations towards refugees. Although national security and
border control are important issues that cannot be ignored, these still need to
be reconciled with principles of international law such as non-refoulement and
respect for the life and liberty of individuals.[37] The absence of
uniform refugee legislation in India has resulted in inconsistent treatment of
different refugees. Hence, a domestic legal regime can balance sovereignty,
security, and refugee protection.
CONCLUSION
The
nonexistence of comprehensive legislation governing refugees in India brings
forth many wide-ranging consequences and difficulties, not just for the
refugees themselves but also for the host community and the country as a whole.
At international level, India’s failure in formulating its own refugee law may
draw some criticism from the global community, because the country seems to be
ignoring the international standards of dealing with refugees.
The
issue of national security becomes a serious concern in the context of lack of
a refugee law, as it might unknowingly put the country at risk of being
infiltrated by malicious people. the key issue here lies in the ability to
balance sovereignty and security with equal protection of persons from
persecution, but not in the failure of India to sign the Refugee Convention.
Dealing with such security issues requires the implementation of effective
screening mechanism as well as formulation of relevant legal provisions to
ensure both the safety and security of the host nation as well as uphold the
dignity of the refugees. This scenario highlights the urgent necessity for the
development of an appropriate legal mechanism that can appropriately address
the specific difficulties confronting the refugees. The development of such a
refugee law will signify the commitment of India towards the promotion of
humanitarian values and its contribution in the international context
concerning refugee protection and management. Apart from reflecting the
commitment of the nation towards the protection and well-being of the refugees
within the territory of India, it will show India’s active participation in
handling the current challenges posed by the global refugee crisis.
SUGGESTIONS
- It
is necessary to enact a legislation that will enable the formation of a
framework for determining the refugee status according to universally
recognized “principles of Refugee Status Determination, treatment and
Protection”.[38]
- Other
than formulating a domestic law, India should take into account seeking
assistance from international sources and extend an open hand to “UNHCR
and other NGOs” to oversee refugee groups that will aid in managing mass
refugees.
- There
should be a balance between humanitarian protection and national security,
where both constitutional principles and sovereign concerns are protected
at the same time.
- If
there is a disagreement between two nations, then specific clauses need to
be added in their bilateral agreements as regards the treatment and status
of refugees so that no kind of dispute may occur. In the absence of such
clauses, the treatment of refugees is uncertain in the hands of the
Government. In 1991, the Tibetan refugees who are considered as “preferred
communities” were subjected to bad treatment during the visit of Chinese
Premier Li Peng to New Delhi. This is an example of the flaws of ad hoc
governance in relation to refugees in India.
- Reports
have been presented by the NHRC for the amendment of the outmoded
Foreigners Act (1946), which is used by the government in terms of
refugees and asylum seekers.[39] The most important gap
in this Act is that it does not mention the word ‘refugee’. In India, the
word ‘foreigner’ is the inclusive word for all aliens residing temporarily
or permanently in the country.
[1] Marconi
Debbarma, ‘Refugees Experience and the Host Communities: Critical Analyses on
Absence of Refugee Law in India’ (2025) 60 Journal of Asian and African Studies
3204 available at: <https://doi.org/10.1177/00219096241228804> accessed
28 August 2026.
[2] Erika
Feller, ‘The Evolution of the International Refugee Protection Regime’ (2001) 5
Journal of Law & Policy.
[3] Convention Relating to the Status
of Refugees (adopted 28 July 1951, entered into force 22 April 1954) 189 UNTS
137 (Refugee Convention).
[4] UN General Assembly, Protocol
Relating to the Status of Refugees, 31 January 1967, United Nations, Treaty
Series, 606 UNTS 267.
[5] Guy S
Goodwin-gill, ‘The Dynamic of International Refugee Law’ (2014) 25
International Journal of Refugee Law 651 available at:
<https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eeu003> accessed 30 August 2026.
[6] Thomas
Gammeltoft-Hansen, ‘International Refugee Law and Refugee Policy: The Case of
Deterrence Policies’ [2014] Journal of Refugee Studies available at:
<http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2487087> accessed 26 August 2026.
[7] Refugee Convention (n 1) art 1A
(2).
[8] David W
Kennedy and David Kennedy, ‘International Refugee Protection, 8 Hum’, vol 1
(1986) available at <http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:16082842>
accessed 28 August 2026.
[9] Feller (n 2).
[10] Refugee Convention (n 2) art 33.
[11]International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR), art. 7, (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force
23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171.
[12] Arun Sagar
and Farrah Ahmed, ‘The Model Law for Refugees: An Important Step Forward?’, vol
17 (2005) available at: <https://www.jstor.org/stable/44290310>
accessed 28 August 2026.
[13] Registration of Foreigners Act
1939, S 2.
[14] Sanjay S Bang, ‘The Status of
Refugee in India: Need for a Domestic Legislation for Protection of Their Human
Rights’ (2012) 1.
[15] Prabodh
Saxena, ‘Creating Legal Space for Refugees in India: The Milestones Crossed and
the Roadmap for the Future’ (2007) 19 International Journal of Refugee Law 246
available at: <https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eem007> accessed 28 August
2026.
[16] ‘77th
Meeting of the Standing Committee - Update on Budgets and Funding (2019,
2020-2021) | UNHCR’ available at: <https://www.unhcr.org/media/77th-meeting-standing-committee-update-budgets-and-funding-2019-2020-2021>
accessed 28 August 2026.
[17] David W
Kennedy and David Kennedy, ‘International Refugee Protection, 8 Hum’, vol 1
(1986) available at: <http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:16082842>
accessed 30 August 2026.
[19] The Constitution of India 1950,
art 51(A).
[20] Vishaka & Ors vs State of
Rajasthan & Ors, (1997) 6 SCC 241.
[21] The Constitution of India 1950,
art 51(c).
[22] Ibid art 253.
[23] V/O Tractor Export, Moscow v.
M/S Tarapore & Co, 1969 SCC (3) 562.
[24] Mr. Louis De Raedt & Ors vs
Union of India and Ors, 1991 AIR 1886.
[25] State of Arunachal Pradesh v
Khudiram Chakma, AIR 1994 SC 1461
[26] Dr Malavika Karlekar v Union of
India, Writ Petition (Criminal) No 583 of 1992 Supreme Court of India.
[27] Mohammad Salimullah v Union of
India, AIR 2021 SC (Civil) 1753.
[28] Union of India v Nandita Haksar
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No(s) 2184/2022.
[29] Zothansangpui v. State of
Manipur, C.R No.981 of 1989.
[30] Nuang Maung Mye Nyant v. Govt.
of India, CWP No. 5120/94.
[31] Shar Aung v. Govt. Of India,
GI.WP NO.110 of 1998.
[32] Seyed Ata Mohammadi v. Union of
India and Others, A.D. No. 1458 of 1994
[33] Hans Muller of Nurenburg v.
Superintendent, Presidency, 1955 SCR (1)1284.
[34] Ktaer Abbas Habib Al Qutaifi v.
Union of India, 1999 CriLJ 919.
[35] Aswathy Madhukumar, ‘Internatıonal
Law in India: Analyzing the Legal and Policy Framework Through International
and Refugee Laws’ (2023) 2 IUS LAW JOURNAL.
[36] Ambika Verma
and Fellow Jindal Global, ‘Global Compact on Refugees: Bridging the Gap Between
International and Domestic Refugee Regime in India’, available at
<https://ssrn.com/abstract=4450953> accessed 28 August 2026.
[37] Aishwarya
Birla, ‘Evaluating the Indian Refugee Law Regime: How Has the Judiciary
Responded to Refugee Claims in Light of International Law Obligations, and How
Can It Do Better?’ (2023) 35 International Journal of Refugee Law 81, available
at <https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eead013> accessed 28 August 2026.
[38] V Suryanarayan, 'Humanitarian
Concerns and Security Needs: Sri Lankan Refugees in Tamil Nadu' in P Chari and
others (eds), Refugees in India (Manak Publications 2003) 55–56.
[39]Rajeev Dhavan, On the Model Law for
Refugees: A Response to the National Human Rights Commission
(2003), available at: <http://www.pilsarc.org/aow/ 64.pdf>
accessed 28 August 2026.
How to Cite This Article
SHEIK SHINY HANEEFA, The Interface between International Refugee Protection Standards and Domestic Public Policy in India: A Global Justice Perspective., White Black Legal – International Law Journal, ISSN: 2581-8503, Vol. 4, Issue 1, September 2026, pp. 449-462, DOI Link: https://www.doi-ds.org/doilink/09.2026-96863284/The Interface between International Refugee Protec. Available at: https://www.whiteblacklegal.co.in/public/details/the-interface-between-international-refugee-protection-standards-and-domestic-public-policy-in-india-a-global-justice-perspective
Author & Publication Record
Authors: SHEIK SHINY HANEEFA
Registration ID: 107071 | Published Paper ID: WBL7071
Year: Sep- 2026 | Volume: 4 | Issue: 1
Approved ISSN: 2581-8503 | Country: Delhi, India
Page No.: 449-462
Full Text Preview
Open in New Tab
Copied