Review

Reviewed Work(s): REFUGEE LAW IN INDIA: THE ROAD FROM AMBIGUITY TO

PROTECTION (2017) by Shuvro Prosun Sarker
Review by: B.C. Nirmal
Source: Journal of the Indian Law Institute , APRIL-JUNE 2019, Vol. 61, No. 2 (APRIL-
JUNE 2019), pp. 279-288
Published by: Indian Law Institute

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/27097365

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/27097365?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Indian Law Institute is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal
of the Indian Law Institute

This content downloaded from

52.66.103.4 on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 06:23:27 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2019] Book Review 279

BOOK REVIEW

REFUGEE LAW IN INDIA: THE ROAD FROM AMBIGUITY TO PROTECTION

(2017). By Shuvro Prosun Sarker. Palgrave Macmillan, 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04
Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore. Pp. xxviii+213. Price Rs. 6368/-
Forced migration continued to be a serious global problem before the International
community despite the spectacular success of the UNHCR1, a United Nations (UN)
refugee protection agency for millions of refugees from their sufferings, miseries and
plights caused by their forced displacement from their countries of origin since its
establishment in 1951.The success story of UNHCR is because of a robust but flexible
and resilient legal framework based on the Refugee Convention, 1951 [Refugee
Convention] related to the status of refugees and its 1967 Protocol [Protocol]. Despite
the success of UNHCR many refugees are present in different parts of the word. As
the matter stands now, the number of internally displaced persons outnumbers the
refugees under the mandate of the UNHCR.2 International Refugee Law (IRL) which
has developed over the years as a result of the activities of UNHCR and state practice
is based on four fundamental principles namely—non refoulement, asylum, burden sharing
and international solidarity but what is worrisome today is that many countries are
indifferent to refugee problems in certain parts of the world and it is the front line
neighbouring states of the refugee producing stateswho are forced to bear the burn
of the exodus of refugee. The exodus of over 10 lakhs Rohingya refugees to Bangladesh
is a case in point. So the big challenge before the international community is how to
ease the burden of refugees hosting states who themselves are poor and hence unable
to fulfil the basic needs of their own people. The appropriate response to this challenge
is burden sharing by other member states of the UN and their cooperation in the
resolution of the current refugee problems. Recognising the need to provide a suitable
legal frame work for securing the support and cooperation of all member states of the
international community in confronting the current refugee crisis, the UN General
Assembly adopted the New York Declaration on 19th September 2016.3

1 B.C.Nirmal, “UNHCR After Six Decades and Beyond”,10 ISIL Yearbook of International
Humanitarian and Refugee Law 182-243 (2010).
2 A total of 40 million are internally displaced people, 3.1 million asylum seekers, 68.5 million
forcibly displaced people worldwide, 1,02,800 refugees resettled in 138 countries, 85% of the
world’s displaced people are in developing countries—Syrian Arab Republic, Afghanistan, South
Sudan, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan, Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, Eritrea and
Burundi are source countries of refugees, and 1/3rd of refugees are hosted in the world’s least
developed countries—Turkey, Pakistan, Uganda, Lebanon, Islamic Republic of Iran, Germany,
Bangladesh, Sudan, Ethiopia and Jordan.
3 General Assembly, New York Declaration, Seventy-first Session (2016), available at: https://
www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/mig ration/generalassembly/docs/
globalcompact/A_RES_71_1.pdf. (last visited on May 26, 2019).

This content downloaded from

52.66.103.4 on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 06:23:27 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
280 Journal of the Indian Law Institute [Vol. 61: 2

The New York Declaration stands as a milestone to protect people who are forcefully
deported from various countries thus promotesglobal solidarity and sense of
responsibility that must be borne more equitably. Also, the Comprehensive Refugee
Response Framework (CRRF) (annex I to the Declaration) stresses on a more people-
centric approach and strongly supports the socio-economic inclusion of refugees
through expanded access to education, livelihood, labour markets as well as in local
and national services. The framework expresses four basic objectives: to ease the
pressure of host countries; to enhance refugee self-reliance; expand access to third-
country solutions; and support conditions in countries of origin for return in safety
and dignity. These objectives of CRRF calls for a more humanitarian solution for
refugee problems all around the world. The CRRF have been applied in 9 states like
Costa Rica, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Somalia, Uganda and
United Republic of Tanzania. This Global Compact constantly invites and requires
new ways of working of all its partners engaged in responding to large movements of
refugees to develop the new partnerships and strengthen the existing ones.
In addition to this, UNHCR’s efforts to strengthen humanitarian development including
collaboration within World Bank, International Labour Organisation and the
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development are some of the incentives
to corporate with the civil needs of contemporary world promote the Global Compact.
The framework and measures of Global Compact on refugees like development of
burden sharing approach and aid the people and the area which need assistance through
Global Compact Forum, funding, partnerships and regional arrangements provide for
a more responsibility-sharing and foreseeable solution to the refugee challenge which
cannot be achieved without international cooperation. It manifests a plan which helps
in the upliftment of both the refugees as well as the host countries. The Global Compact
is a road map or model for governments, international organizations and other
stakeholders that ensures the well-being of the refugees and host countries.
Moreover, the New York Declaration marks the role of donor countries in the
development of third-world countries by promoting bilateral and multilateral trade
and investment in their resources. The predictable, systematic and sustained engagement
of development actors through investment and innovation can bring great benefits to
refugees and host communities alike. Reflecting on the intent of New York Declaration,
many world colleagues have joined hands with them which include the World Bank,
the International Committee of Red Cross, the Unites Nations Office of Humanitarian
Affairs and the United Nations Development Programme. In this way, the New York
Declaration is based on humanitarian values, notion of burden sharing and acts as a
real solution to the challenges of refugee. This declaration as well as the Global Compact
stands out and conceive the whole world as a family with all supporting, encouraging
and developing each other in times of need and prevent the wretchedness of any one
member.Also, in the recent years the increasing engagement of private sector action

This content downloaded from

52.66.103.4 on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 06:23:27 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2019] Book Review 281

for refugees has not only provided financial assistance to the refugees but has also
contributed in the development of corporate social responsibility initiatives to address
operational challenges and combat the problem of refugees.4
The realisation of the CRRF under the New York Declaration and Global Compact
on refugee protection on the required member states of the committee to accept their
commitments in this regard and take appropriate steps for the fulfilment of their
resolution at a national level. This is as much applicable to India as to other member
states of UN. India has been a torch bearer of the UN and enjoined by article 51(c) of
the Indian Constitution to endeavour to respect for International law and treaty of the
nation has always been in forefront of international negotiations related to progressive
development of public international law through the conclusion of a series of
multilateral treaties and conventions and participation in several regional and
international organisations. Although India is not a party to the Refugee Convention
and or its protocol,5 it has successfully handled the problems of partition refugees,
Tibetan refugees, Bangladeshi refugees (East Pakistan), Sri Lankan refugees and Chakma
refugees at different points of time and earned laurels from the International community
for the same and continues to be the abode of hundreds and thousands of refugees
of different ethnic origins still today. Consistent with its rich noble tradition to give
shelter to individuals and communities in distress for last many centuries, India has
provided humanitarian treatment to refugees and asylum seekers during more than
seven decades and in the process has developed her own rich corpus of refugee law
which is by and large inconsonance with the basic and fundamental norms of IRL.
Notable in this regard is India’s adherence to the principle of non-refoulement which
according to Indian high courts has acquired the status of customary international law
and which according to legal scholars is a juscogens, a peremptory norm of international
law from which no derogation is generally permitted. The decision of the right-wing
BJP led government to forcibly deport nearly 40,000 Rohingyas who are helpless and
hopeless ethnic minorities and state less communities in Myanmar not only in this
regard of basic and fundamental norms of IRL but also in contradiction to its own
previous state practice, noble tradition, liberal and humanistic culture is bound to
tarnish the image of mother India at international level.

4 Follow-Up to the New York Declaration and The Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework,
Executive Committee of the High Commissioner’s Programme, Standing Committee, 69th
Meeting, at 01-07.
5 The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees: Its Relevance in the Contemporary
Context, available at: https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/3ae6b3388.pdf (last visited on May 26,
2019). For the text of 1967 Protocol to the Refugee Convention, see Protocol Relating to the
Status of Refugees, 1967, available at : https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3ae4.html (last
visited on May 26, 2019).

This content downloaded from

52.66.103.4 on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 06:23:27 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
282 Journal of the Indian Law Institute [Vol. 61: 2

The Citizenship Amendment Bill, 2016 which aims to give red carpet welcome to
Hindus from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan to settle and acquire citizenship
in India is another potentially disruptive trend in India’s refugee cum asylum policy.
This Bill has already sparked off displeasure in the North-East region and has dubious
constitutionality. Besides being in contravention of provisions of human right treaties
to which India is a party, the above mentioned international as well as domestic trends
require a refreshing, critical, objective and dispassionate look at the refugee law and
policy of India.
Professors J.N. Saxena,6 B.S. Chimni,7 Ranabir Samaddar,8 B.C. Nirmal,9 and Senior
Advocate Rajeev Dhawan10 have critically examined the refugee law and policy of
India in their writings. The common theme of these writings is that India should
exceed to the refugee convention and protocol and should enact a refugee specific
legislation. Sarker’s book11 is a latest additionon the subject. The book under review is
the doctrinal empirical study to show that refugees of different nationalities have been
or beingunequally treated in this country to remedy which India needs a refugee specific
enactment. It is also a comparative study in the sense that it compares the state practice
of Canada, South Africa and Brazil with the state practice of India. It consists of eight
chapters which deal with the following aspects of Indian refugee law and policies:
Philosophical basis of International protection of refugees; judicial decisions of the
Supreme Courts, high courts and trial courts on refugee protection; Discriminatory

6 J.N. Saxena, “Legal Status of Refugees: Indian Position”, 26(3&4) Indian Journal of International
Law 501, 504 (1986).J. N. Saxena “Problems of Refugees in Developing Countries and the
Need for International Burden Sharing”, in K. P. Saksena (ed.),Human Rights, Perspective and
Challenges 354-68(Lancers Books, New Delhi, 1994).
7 B.S. Chimni, “The Legal Condition of Refugees in India”, 7(4) Journal of Refugee Studies 378-401
(1994); B.S. Chimni, “Status of Refugees in India: Strategic Ambiguity”, in Ranabir Samaddar
(ed.), Refugees and the State: Practices of Asylum and Care in India (1947-2000) 443-47 (SAGE
Publications, New Delhi, 2003).
8 Ranabir Samaddar, “Refugees and the Dynamics of Hospitality: The Indian Story”, inUma A.
Segal, Doreen Elliott, and Nazneen S. Mayadas (eds.), Immigration Worldwide: Policies, Practices, and
Trends 112–23 (Oxford University Press, New York, 2010). Ranabir Samaddar, “Power and
Responsibility at the Margins: The Case of India in the Global Refugee Regime”, 33(1) Refuge
42-51 (2017).
9 B.C. Nirmal,”Refugees and Human Rights”, 1 ISIL Yearbook of International Humanitarian and
Refugee Law 94-117 (2001); B.C. Nirmal, “The Legal Status of Refugees in India”, in Bimal N.
Patel (ed.), India and International Law 175-188(Martinus Nijhoff,Netherlands, 2005); B.C. Nirmal
(2010), supra note 1.
10 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 (last visited on May 29, 2019). Rajeev
Dhavan, Refugee Law and Policy in India (PILSARC, New Delhi, 2004).
11 Shuvro Prosun Sarker, Refugee Law in India: The Road from Ambiguity to Protection (Springer Nature,
Singapore, 2017).

This content downloaded from

52.66.103.4 on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 06:23:27 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2019] Book Review 283

treatment of refugees of different nationalities; Findings of empirical studies on

treatment of different categories of refugees in India; International standards on refugee
protections; Analysis of modern mational legislation on refugees, 1997; and finally a
need for refugee legislation.
It is evident from a thorough consideration that the book tries to lay new grounds for
the study of India’s refugee law which is certainly commendable as the author has
made a modest attempt to explore and analyse the refugee law and policies of this
country in the light of developments that have taken place elsewhere specially in the
EU. This book, however, suffers from several organisational and structural deficits.
The author begins his study with the philosophical basis for protection of refugees
but fails to relate it to the basis of international protection under the refugee convention
and the statute of UNHCR. By discussing the condition of refugees in the very
beginning chapter, he has left very little scope for a comprehensive study of refugee
law in a separate chapter. In this regard, it is relevant to mention that “Refugee protection
is a rights based and-rights driven concept and as such is concerned not only with
protecting rights of refugees during flight and exile, but also promoting safe and durable
solutions of the refugee problems and ensuring the rights of returnees. Put another
way, the concept of refugee protection refers to the act of respecting and upholding
the core human rights of refugees and means for elimination of any disability which
may rise for the lack of national protection for the conferment of refugee status on
the individuals taking refuge in another country. Its ultimate aim is to gesture the
cessation of refugee status. International protection also means protection against
refoulement of refugees and is concerned with asylum, resettlement and fulfilment of
basic needs of refugees.”12 It is a matter of common sense and wisdom that international
standards and regional regimes for refugee protection getpriority for discussion in the
early chapter subsequent to introductory chapter of the studies and domestic response
is considered in subsequent chapters. The empirical study by the author in chapter
confirms an already well known fact that refugees of different nationalities are not
treated equally in India. The reason for the discriminatory treatment of different
categories of refugees lies in domestic compulsions (ethnic affinities of Bengalis and
Sri Lankan Tamil Refugees with a section of population at home) and a sense of guilt
arising out of foreign policy blunders committed by India in the case of Tibet. Thus,
domestic compulsions and dictates of international relation generally play a big role in
the determination of treatment to be carried out on the refugees of different
nationalities in a refugee-hosting State. Nevertheless, the comparative study of refugee
law of three countries is welcomed, especially the basis for selection [threecounties of
three different regions: a developed country, and twodeveloping countries (one from
African region and other from Latin America)].

12 B.C. Nirmal (2010), supra note 1 at 193-195.

This content downloaded from

52.66.103.4 on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 06:23:27 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
284 Journal of the Indian Law Institute [Vol. 61: 2

The author’s assertion that non-accession of Refugee Convention in India is due to

political courage on the part of the government is misplaced and unfounded insinuation.
The fact of the matter is that with the refusal to become a party in Refugee Convention,
India has exercised its sovereign prerogatives after a thoughtful consideration of all
relevant factors that has a bearing on the refugee problems.
The author has duly appreciated the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) for
its details touching on all the aspects of refugee protection. The failure of the system
during the recent serious refugee crisis raises the question and exposes its weaknesses
and inability to provide refugee protection to non-European asylum seekers in distress.
The reason for prevalent escapism about the efficacy of the CEAS is summed up by a
commentator in these words, “While the CEAS pursues on overall protection goal,
the system is rendered inaccessible to its addressees, either through indiscriminate
border and migration controls deployed extraterritorially that blocks prospective
beneficiaries enroute or through the operation of procedural device, such as the ‘safe
third country’ notion, that push responsibility away from the member States.” 13
Commenting on the inherent weaknesses of the CEAS, it has been observed that
“The weaknesses that plague the CEAS surface at different points in the four main
phases of the Asylum system: registration, reception, asylum procedures, and
adjudication. These include the challenges of registering asylum applicants who refuse
to have their fingerprints taken, of building reception systems that can accommodate
fluctuations in arrivals, and of standardising how asylum cases are processed and
decided. The degree to which these weaknesses have been acknowledged and
documented varies, as do the actions that have or have not been taken to resolve
them.”14 According to another commentator, “poor response of the EU to the recent
refugee crisis is because of failed migration and asylum policies of the EU which
indicate a political and structural crisis of European integration.”15 In any case no one
can argue that India became party to a 68 years old treaty, especially at this belated
stage when the refugee problem has undergone a sea change over the years and UNHCR
faces new challenges and problems16 such as shrinking humanitarian space, refugee
protection in urban setting, problem of international protection and mixed migration

13 Directorate General for External Policies, Current Challenges for International Refugee Law, With a
Focus on EU Policies and EU Co-operation with the UNHCR 5 (2013), available at: http://
w w w. e u r o p a r l . e u r o p a . e u / R e g D a t a / e t u d e s / n o t e / j o i n / 2 0 1 3 / 4 3 3 7 1 1 / E X P O -
DROI_NT(2013)433711_EN.pdf (last visited on May 29, 2019). For Further implication of
these see B.C. Nirmal (2001), supra note 9.
14 Hanne Beirens, Cracked Foundation, Uncertain Future: Structural Weaknesses in Common European
Asylum System 3 (Migration Policy Institute Europe, Brussels, 2018).
15 Pero Maldini and Marta Takahashi, “Refugee Crisis and the European Union; Do the Failed
Migration and Asylum Policies Indicate a Political and Structural Crisis of European Integration?”,
(2017), available at: https://hrcak.srce.hr/191556 (last visited on May 29, 2019).
16 B.C. Nirmal (2010), supra note 1 at 236-243.

This content downloaded from

52.66.103.4 on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 06:23:27 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2019] Book Review 285

and the phenomenon of many refugees and for decades in camps without any solution
which is termed as ‘protracted situations’ which require new normative and regulatory
framework.
Be that it may the CEAS is a regional system conceived, developed and implemented
by the EU, 28 members of which are developed countries. The main concern of these
countries is not only to generally provide access to refugees and asylum seekers from
other parts of the world but also to prevent or restrict the entries of these unfortunate
individuals in Europe. Since the focus of the author is on refugee law of India and not
on development of regional arrangement for refugee protection in SAARC or ASEAN
countries,it does not appear to be of much relevance in the context the predominant
theme of the book which is under review.In order to prevent the entry of Muslim
Rohingyas into India, the author offers a very interesting but highly controversial
suggestion which seems to be influenced by unilateral, unethical and unjustified refugee
policies of the EU states ignoring the ground realities in Myanmar which share not
only a long border with India but which was once an integral part of this country. It is
relevant to note in this context that the concept of a ‘safe third country’ presupposes
that an asylum applicant could have obtained international protection in another country
and therefore the receiving state is entitled to reject the responsibility for the protection
claim. The merits of their claim, as in the case for the related concept of ‘first country
asylum’, which covers refugees who have already obtained and can avail themselves of
protection in a third country.17 To elaborate the point during the recent serial refugee
crisis, the EU states described Turkey as a ‘safe third country’ for asylum seekers. Thus
the EU-Turkey statement enables the removal to Turkey of all irregular migrants coming
to the Greek Islands after 20 March 2016, including migrants not applying for asylum
or whose applications have been found to be inadmissible in accordance to EU asylum
law.To avoid the misuse of the concept of and its likely serious consequences for the
refugees, the Asylum Procedures Directive (APD) were formulated. The Article 27 of
APD is concerned with the possibility for member States to apply the ‘safe third country
concept’, “Member States may apply the safe third country concept only where the
competent authorities are satisfied that a person seeking asylum will be treated in
accordance with the following principles in the third country concerned: (a) life and
liberty are not threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a
particular social group or political opinion; (b) the principle of non-refoulement in
accordance with the Geneva Convention is respected; (c) the prohibition of removal,
in violation of the right to freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment as laid down in international law, is respected; and (d) the possibility exists
to request refugee status and, if found to be a refugee, to receive protection in

17 Eirik Christophersen, What is a Safe Third Country? (2016), available at: https://www.nrc.no/
image/26176/flyktninger%20gevgelija.jpg?width=1400&height=700 (last visited on May 30,
2019).

This content downloaded from

52.66.103.4 on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 06:23:27 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
286 Journal of the Indian Law Institute [Vol. 61: 2

accordance with the Geneva Convention.”18 The premise on which the transfer of
asylum seekers from Greece to Turkey is based is that the latter can be considered a
‘safe third country’ for refugees.19 The ‘safe third country’ concept (which purports to
deny asylum seekers access to a comprehensive asylum determination procedure because
they could have sought protection in countries they passed through to reach their
ultimate) has come into force in Europe and the United States. The Dublin and
Schengen Conventions which lay down new criteria for determining claims of asylum
seekers have also complicated the problem. Ironically, these unethical and illegal practices
are being resorted to by those countries which were instrumental in the initial drafting
and adoption of the Refugee Convention and have the economic ability and indeed,
the duty to give them both asylum and protection. As refugee protection is an important
dimension of human rights protection, unilateral restrictive practices adopted by both
the developed and developing countries are inconsistent with their obligations under
IRL and humanitarian law and constitute a serious violation of human rights.20
In view of all this, any outright importation of concepts developed by developed
member states of the EU for the purpose of abiding to their obligations under IRL
and Human Rights Law in the Indian context defies any logic and justification. The
very fact that the principle of non-refoulement is already recognised as a rule of
international customary law prohibits the rejection of refugees at borders. UNHCR’s
note on the principle of non-refoulement states that the territorial application of the
principle applies both within a State’s territory and to rejection at its borders. It also
applies outside the territory of States. In essence, it is applicable wherever States act.
On this view preventing Rohingyas at borders from entering into India by enforcement
agencies as suggested by the author is manifestly inconsistent with the principle of
non-refoulement.
The author has rightly appreciated and applauded the role of the Supreme Court and
High Court in the development of a ‘humanitarian and human rights oriented’ and
‘constitutionally mandated’ consistent legal framework for protection of refugees in
India. But the manner in which Supreme Court handled the Rohingya issues and even
acquiesced in a forcible deportation of seven Rohingyas to Myanmar where genocide
crime against humanity, fragrant violation of human rights and xenophobic,
discriminatory policies of the Myanmar’s government await them is mind boggling
and constitutes a significant departure from its own just, fair and compassionate
jurisprudence on refugee protection.21

18 Asylym Procedures Directive, art. 27 available at: https://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/

rwmain/opendocpdf.pdf ?reldoc=y&docid=4bab55e22 (last visited on May 30, 2019).
19 Roberto Cortinovis, Responsibility in EU Asylum Policy (Discussion Brief, July 2018), available at:
h t t p : / / w w w. r e s o m a . e u / s i t e s / r e s o m a / r e s o m a / f i l e s / p o l i c y _ b r i e f / p d f /
Policy%20Briefs_topic2_Responsibility%20sharing_1.pdf (last visited on May 30, 2019).
20 B.C.Nirmal (2001), supra note 9.
21 NHRC v. State of Arunachal Pradesh 1996 SCC (1) 742.

This content downloaded from

52.66.103.4 on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 06:23:27 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2019] Book Review 287

Not being constitutional courts, trial courts have limited jurisdiction to decide the
criminal cases against refugees who have entered the country in and elate violation of
the foreigners related legislation and hence cannot be expected to develop standard
practice, something for which the author has criticised these courts. The approach of
trial courts in the case of legally detained refugees/asylum seekers has been by and
large kind, compassionate and liberal within the framework of existing laws.22 Therefore,
the recent decisions of the foreigners’ determination in Assam in the case of Rohingyas
are seen as an aberration. The present reviewer agrees with the author that India needs
refugee legislation in order to ensure equality of treatment for refugees of different
nationalities within its jurisdiction but at the same time also feels that there are equally
varied regions in support of enactment of such legislation.
The author’s plea for enactment for a refugee specific legislation to ensure equality of
treatment for refugees of different nationalities needs to be appreciated. The present
reviewer has also supported this idea by adducing many more regions in this regard-
Enactment of a refugee specific legislation would not only serve to codify India’s legal
obligations for refugees and establish transparency, fairness, predictability and certainty
in its refugee policy but it would also enhance its credibility and standing out in the
international community, and enable the courts and human rights institutions to protect
the rights of refugees in a better way. The proposed legislation should cover broadly
the following areas; the refugee definition, exclusion from refugee status, non-refoulement,
procedure for refugee status determination, cessation of refugee status, rights and
duties of refugees, the situation of mass influx, the situation of refugees unlawfully in
the country of refugee and voluntary repatriation of refugees. The proposed legislation
should adopt a balanced and practical approach to the refugee issues by ensuring a
harmonious balance between humanitarian concerns involved in the refugee situation
on the one hand and security concerns and the national interest of the country on
other.”23 Despite these convincing reasons, it remains to be seen whether the
Government of India will reconsider its earlier stand on this issue in near future on
not. But reluctance of the government to become a party to the Refugee Convention
or to enact a refugee specific legislation is unusual given the fact that India has not
become a party to important International Conventions such as the Rome Statute of
1998, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Vienna Convention on State
Succession to treaties and alike.
On the whole, the book written by a bright prominent young scholar and published by
Springer, a reputed International Publisher, has all potentials to galvanise a healthy
debate on key issues related to the refugee law policies of India. Despite its limitations,

22 B.C. Nirmal (2010), supra note 1 at 181-83.

23 B.C. Nirmal (2005), supra note 9 at 188.

This content downloaded from

52.66.103.4 on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 06:23:27 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
288 Journal of the Indian Law Institute [Vol. 61: 2

it could be considered as a useful addition to existing literature on the subject. As

usual the cost of the book is prohibitive for Indian scholars and Human Rights
practitioners.
B.C. Nirmal*

* Former Vice Chancellor, NUSRL, Ranchi and Former Head and Dean, Law School, Banaras
Hindu University.

This content downloaded from

52.66.103.4 on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 06:23:27 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms