India lacks a codified refugee law, yet border States like Mizoram host large displaced populations. Examine the humanitarian, security and federal dimensions of this gap.

India has not signed the 1951 Refugee Convention and has no refugee statute. Displaced people are therefore handled through executive discretion. By August 2026, Mizoram alone had registered 38,213 refugees from Myanmar, Bangladesh and Manipur [1]. That figure shows how this legal gap plays out on the frontier.

Humanitarian dimension

• No legal guard against forced return: Protection depends on goodwill. Chin refugees were pushed back from Mizoram in 2003 and still fear deportation [2].
• Invisibility: Registered numbers (38,213) trail civil-society estimates of 60,000+ [1]. Mizoram has also stopped issuing temporary ID cards [2]. Unregistered families therefore miss out on food, health care and schooling.
• Category confusion: 6,959 Kuki-Zomi from Manipur are Indian citizens, i.e. internally displaced persons (IDPs). Yet they are listed alongside foreign refugees [1].
• Positive: Shared Zo ethnic kinship has made Mizoram a willing host [1].

Security dimension

• The inflows trace back to the Myanmar coup (2021) and Chittagong Hill Tracts unrest (2022) [1]. The porous border also carries risks of arms, drug and insurgent movement.
• The Centre plans to scrap the Free Movement Regime, citing internal security and "demographic structure" [3]. It has also decided to fence the entire 1,643-km Indo-Myanmar border [4].
• No one determines refugees' legal status, so biometric enrolment (98.9% of Chin) [1] serves surveillance more than protection.

Federal dimension

• "Citizenship, naturalisation and aliens" is a Union List subject (Entry 17), yet border States bear the actual burden of hosting.
• Divergent lenses: Aizawl treats the arrivals as kin, while Delhi treats the border as a security problem [1][3].
• Data workaround: Mizoram will count refugees on a separate list in Census 2027 (reference date 1 March 2027) [1][5]. This risks leaving the Manipur IDPs out of both States' totals.

Way forward

• A national refugee law with status determination and protection against forced return.
• Refugee data released only as aggregates, protected by the Census Act, 1948 confidentiality clause.
• Manipur IDPs counted as citizens with a "displaced" tag.
• Written limits on how the State's biometric data may be used, plus cost-sharing between the Centre and host States.

Without a legal framework, India's humanitarian, security and federal goals pull against each other on its frontier. A codified law, consistent with Article 21's protection of all persons (NHRC v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, 1996), would let India secure its borders while staying a humane, cooperative federation.