India's refugee policy lacks a codified domestic law. Discuss with reference to the treatment of Rohingya refugees and India's international obligations.

India has sheltered Tibetans, Sri Lankan Tamils, Afghans and Chakmas, yet it is neither party to the 1951 Refugee Convention nor its 1967 Protocol, and has no national refugee protection law [1]. Asylum therefore rests on executive discretion rather than statute — a gap the Rohingya question exposes sharply.

The statutory vacuum

• Indian law carries no legal definition of "refugee"; asylum-seekers are simply foreigners, now governed by the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, which repealed the Foreigners Act, 1946 and regulates entry, stay and removal [2].
• Status determination for several groups is done by UNHCR, not an Indian statutory authority, producing unequal treatment across refugee communities [1].
• Executive-led policy grants strategic flexibility, but makes protection unpredictable and community-specific.

The Rohingya as a test case

• Classified as illegal migrants; since a 2017 Home Ministry advisory, States have been directed to identify and deport them, with detention under the foreigners framework.
• In Mohammad Salimullah v. Union of India (2021), the Supreme Court declined to halt deportation, holding that Articles 14 and 21 protect non-citizens, but the right not to be deported flows from Article 19(1)(e), available only to citizens [3].
• CERD's August 2026 concluding observations flagged racial profiling and ill-treatment of Rohingya, Bengali-speaking Muslims and other non-citizens [4]; the MEA rejected them as "politically motivated" and exceeding the Convention's mandate [5].

International obligations

• India is bound by ICERD and ICCPR, and non-refoulement is widely treated as customary international law [4].
• Article 51(c) directs the State to foster respect for international law; India also sits on UNHCR's Executive Committee and endorses the non-binding Revised Bangkok Principles [1].

India's humanitarian record is substantial but legally unanchored, leaving it exposed to external criticism it must then rebut politically. A codified refugee law — defining refugees, creating a statutory status-determination authority, and balancing non-refoulement with national-security screening — would convert discretion into rule of law, harmonising India's ancient tradition of asylum with Article 51(c) and its treaty commitments.