India is not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention, 1951. Discuss the implications of this for its treatment of the Rohingya, and evaluate the principle of non-refoulement.

India hosts refugees without being party to the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol, whose cornerstone is Article 33's bar on returning refugees to territories where life or freedom is threatened [1]. This absence of a treaty anchor, rather than absence of humanitarianism, shapes India's contested handling of the Rohingya.

Implications of non-accession for the Rohingya

• No statutory refugee status: lacking a domestic refugee law, the Rohingya are treated as foreigners under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, which replaced the Foreigners Act, 1946 and empowers the Centre over entry, stay and removal [2]. UNHCR cards carry no legal force.
• Detention and deportation: prolonged detention and forced returns of Rohingya and other asylum-seekers were flagged with "grave concern" by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in India's first review since 2007, which urged an end to collective expulsions [3].
• Judicial ambivalence: in Mohammad Salimullah v. Union of India (2021) the Supreme Court permitted deportation if due procedure is followed, holding non-refoulement unenforceable against a non-signatory, while affirming Article 21 protections [4].
• Policy flexibility: non-accession preserves strategic room on security screening and on India–Myanmar and India–Bangladesh sensitivities [3].

Evaluating non-refoulement

• Merits: it is widely regarded as customary international law, binding irrespective of ratification, and admits no reservation under the Convention [1]; it complements Article 21's guarantee of life and liberty to all persons.
• Limits: Article 33(2) itself allows narrow national-security exceptions [1]; the norm is non-justiciable in India absent enabling legislation, and CERD's recommendations are recommendatory, not enforceable [3].

India's record of sheltering Tibetans, Sri Lankan Tamils and Afghans shows that principle, not paperwork, has guided practice. A codified national refugee and asylum law — with transparent status determination, security vetting and time-bound review of detention — would align India's humane tradition with Article 21 and its ICERD commitments, converting external criticism into an opportunity for institutional clarity.