Abstract
ABSTRACT India’s courts have proven cautious or ineffectual in protecting refugees and asylum seekers in India against refoulement. This article examines the courts’ approaches to the prospective removal of persons at risk of harm if removed from India and identifies a contradiction between the breadth of India’s constitutional guarantee of “life and liberty” and its courts’ narrow and inconsistent approach to questions of refoulement. This article argues that the right to non-refoulement has solely been recognized in India as a “procedural” right (merely requiring that persons at risk of persecution on return to their countries of origin be removed through “proper” procedures), and that this approach is unclear, inconsistent and unsatisfactory.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
