DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

“Indian’s Strategies on Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons”

Dr.Lakshmi.Ch.,.,
Assistant Professor-( Human Rights & Humanitarian Laws)

Bodapati.Vamsi Krishna-(2015023)
Semester-05

1
 ACKNOWLEDGE
I would like to put forward my heartfelt appreciation to our respected law of Human Rights
professor, Dr. Lakshmi.ch. for giving me a golden opportunity to take up this project regarding
“Indian’s Strategies on Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons ”. I have tried my best to
collect information about the project in various possible ways to depict clear picture about the
given project topic.

CERTIFICATE
I hereby declare that the project work entitled [“Indian’s Strategies on Refugees and
Internally Displaced Persons] submitted to the [Damodaram Sanjivayyah National Law
University], is a record of an original work done by me[Bodapati Vamsi Krishna] under the
guidance of Faculty Dr.Lakshmi.Ch.,., Professor (Human Rights & Humanitarian Laws).
For giving a golden opportunity to me to take up this project and this project work has not
performed the basis for the ward of any Degree or diploma/ associate ship /fellowship and
similar project if any
Signature of student :

Signature of Faculty

2
Contents:
Acknowledgment…………………………………………………………………………………3
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………..5
Object or aim of the study………………………………………………………………………..5
Significance and benefit of the study…………………………………………………………….5
Scope of the study………………………………………………………………………………..5
Research problem………………………………………………………………………………...5
Review of literature………………………………………………………………………………6
Research methodology…………………………………………………………………………...6
Hypothesis………………………………………………………………………………………..6
Chapter-1
1.1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………....7
1.2.………………………………………………..………8
1.3.…………………………………………………………………………..………8
Chapter-2
2.1. ……………………………………………………………………………….8 – 12
2.2. ……………………………………………………………………....12 – 16
2.3. ……………………………………………………………….…….16 – 18
2.4. ………………………………………………………………………………….18 – 21
2.5. ………………………………………………………………………………..21 – 24
Chapter-3
3.1. Findings and suggestions ……………………………………………………………24-25
3.2. Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………..25
3.3.References……………………………………………………………………………25
3.4Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………….26

3
Abstract

OBJECT OR AIM OF STUDY:

The main aim of the study is to analyze who is a refugee and internally displaced persons and
what are their rights and how the international humanitarian law protecting the refugees as well
as internally displaced person will be analyzing.

Significance & benefit of the study:

This study help us to know Indian’s Strategies on Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons
to protect their rights.
Scope of the study:
The study is limited only to Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons to protect their rights.
RESEARCH PROBLEM:
1. Who is a Refugee?
2. Who are called as Internally Displaced Persons ?
3. What is Rights they have?
4. How India is protecting their rights?

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

To study the literature that is the books, journals, articles, on the topic taken and to review
research studies undertaken by others.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

The researcher opted for the doctrinal method completely based on the library & e sources
those are available on the given topic to the researcher.

HYPOTHESIS :

Indian constitution provided a frame work for protection of Refugees and Internally Displaced
Persons as to protect their rights.
Contents: Chapter-1 explains about what is a contract and essential of contract and defines free
consent. Chapter -2 Chapter -3 conclusion and findings ,references ,bibliography .

4
5
Introduction

If we observe the name of the paper itself a self explanatory one India’s Strategies on
Refugees and internally displaced persons. It means what are the measures were followed by the
India for protection of Refugee and Internally displaced persons. While we are reading the first
& foremost question arises for each and every reader who can called as Refugee? and whom can
be called as internally displaced persons. According to Black’s Law Dictionary Refugee is
defined as follow a Person who, being domiciled in one place, seeks refuge in another country or
in another jurisdiction to save his life and property from the destructive consequences of war,
revolution, or dictatorship. The Convention relating to the Status of Refugees,19511 Article-1
Para 2 defines the refugee as owing to well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race,
religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the
country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the
protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his
former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is
unwilling to return to it. In General refugee can be defined as the People who are forced to flee
their homes due to persecution, whether on an individual basis or as part of a mass exodus due to
political, religious, military or other problems, are known as refugees.
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees operation in India is based in New
Delhi and has an office in Chennai. In New Delhi, UNHCR conducts mandate Refugee Status
Determination (RSD) for individual asylum seekers from non-neighbouring countries, with the
exception of Myanmar. The UNHCR office in Chennai supports the voluntary repatriation of Sri
Lankan refugees to their home country. At the same time as of end December 2014, there are
some 31,000 refugees and asylum-seekers registered with UNHCR in India.Some 51% of
refugees and asylum-seekers are men, while 49% are women. There are some 11,000 children
below the age of 18.Other nationalities including refugees from Democratic Republic of Congo,
Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan.

Tamil Nadu (1,02,478), Delhi (10,161), Uttrakhand (11,768) and Chhattisgarh (62,890) are
among the top states and UT where a maximum number of refugees are located. Chandigarh
(1) and Goa (3) have least number of refugees living there.
1
The Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, adopted in Geneva on July 28, 1951 Article-1

6
 Internally displaced people (IDPs) have not crossed a border to find safety. Unlike
refugees, they are on the run at their country. While they may flee from their places to another
place because of similar reasons like refugees but they stay within their own country and
continue under the shelter of its government, regardless of whether the government is the reason
for their displacement. Therefore, these individuals are among the most helpless/ vulnerable on
the planet.
The Analytical Report of the Secretary-General on Internally Displaced Persons 19922
defined as follow "Persons who have been forced to flee their homes suddenly or unexpectedly in
large numbers, as a result of armed conflict, internal strife, systematic violations of human rights
or natural or made-man disasters; and who are within the territory of their own country". The
IDP definition, unlike the refugee definition, did not mention a government's willingness or
ability to protect displaced persons. By making location the essence of the IDP definition, and
not the right to be protected, it did not offer the restoration of one's rights in another location as a
durable solution for internally displaced people.
As of April 2015 an estimated 6,16,140 inhabitants were displaced in India as a
consequence of armed conflict and inter-communal aggressions. More than half, or 364,100, are
intense in two areas: the northern state of Jammu and Kashmir, where there are 2,51,000 IDPs,
most of them since 1990, and the north-eastern state of Assam, which is hosting some 1,13,000
IDPs, the majority of whom fled inter-communal violence in late 2014. Some 2,52,000 IDPs are
found in the capital, Delhi, and in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Nagaland,
Telangana, Tripura and Uttar Pradesh. At least 346,000 were newly displaced by conflict and
violence between January 2014 and March 2015, most fleeing inter-communal violence in
Western Assam.
Refugees
Refugees in India
India mostly plays host to refugees from its neighouring countries who are either forced
to leave their countries of origin due to internal or external conflict, political persecution or
human rights infringements. Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka, Jumma people from Bangladesh,
Tibetan refugees from Tibet and Chin and other tribal refugees from Burma, Afghanistan, Iran

2
The Analytical Report of the Secretary-General on Internally Displaced Persons of 14 February 1992

7
and even Sudan today comprise the bulk of India's refugee population. In modern times, the
movement of the refugees and displaced persons has seriously affected India and other South
Asian countries. The statistics indicate that India has one of the largest refugee populations in
the world because of India's porous borders and accommodative policies. It is estimated that
India hosted approximately 456,000 refugees in 2008, including about 96,000 Sri Lankans, about
73,300 stay in more than a hundred camps but registered with the nearest police stations. About
2,800 more entered in 2008. Some 110,000 Tibetans, about 80 percent of whom lived in camps
or scattered settlements, lived more freely in the country. 1° About 100,000 ethnic Chin from
Myanmar lived under the most restricted conditions in the eastern state of Mizoram with a few
hundred in New Delhi. An estimated 30,000 Afghans remained although only about 9,000 held
UNHCR mandate status. Around 25,000 Bhutanese refugees also resided in India as more left
Nepal for Indian states of West Bengal, Sikkim, and Bihar and about 25,000 Nepalis remained in
fear of Maoists now in the Government of Nepal. 12
India also hosted some 600 Somali refugees, who began fleeing their country after collapse of
the government in 1991 and an unknown number of Iraqi and Iranian refugees and about 200
Palestinians from Iraq also resided in India. Some 65,000 ethnic Chakmas from Bangladesh
remained mostly in the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram and Assam. The Supreme Court
established their Indian nationality but the actual naturalization process proceeded slowly.
Legal Status of Refugees in India
In India there is no national legislation concerning refugees, their legal status and rights.
They are treated as aliens. In the absence of clear cut guidelines, refugees thus fall under the
purview of the legislative framework that addresses all foreigners in India. Further India's
refugee policy is governed by certain administrative regulations. There are three sets of laws that
deal with foreigners in India. They are: The Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939, dealing with
all the foreigners, the foreigners Act, 1946, empowering the state of regulates the entry, the
presence and departure of aliens in India and the foreigner's order 1948. Under Section 2 of the
Registration of Foreigners Act, the term foreigner is defined as "a person who is not a citizen of
India", which can refer to aliens of any kind including immigrants, refugees and tourists. The
Foreigners Act of 1946 and the foreigners' order of 1948 also uses this definition of a foreigner.
The Indian government has the power to restrict movement inside India, limit
employment opportunities, and control the opportunity to associate and the right to return

8
refugees to the country they have fled from. Further Government has the power to either grant or
refuse entry if a person does not possess a valid passport. The governments can refoule refugees
at the border.
No current Indian law refers directly to refugees. The current position is that they are
dealt with under the existing Indian Laws, both general and special, which are otherwise
applicable to all foreigners. In the absence of a legal process, India's treatment of asylum seekers
has always been a political decision, a direct result of the country's relation with the refugee's
country of origin hence the government of India handles refugee matters administratively,
according to internal domestic and bilateral political and humanitarian consideration.
India is not a signatory to the 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees or the 1967
protocol
India has never been a member of the 1951 International Convention for Refugees and its
1967 Protocol, and even though it is member of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees
(UNHCR) Executive Committee since 1996, but it does not officially recognizes the work of the
UN body in its territory. India's reluctance to sign the Convention stems from its position
that it is Eurocentric, tailored to fit the refugee movements after World War II and has not
responded well to mass migration. Another reason of not signing the UN convention protecting
refugees is that the signing convention meant to be obligated to accept massive flows of refugees
from politically unstable neighbors. As mentioned earlier India has a huge population over a
billion people with at least six hundred million living in poverty. Thus our own people are living
like refugees with limited access to basic necessities. Signing convention implies taking on the
obligation to provide employment, food, housing, medical care, education etc., to refugees.
Despite not signing up, our record to giving shelter has been very good.
India's International Commitments
India does not have on its statute book a specific and separate law to govern refugees. In the
absence of such a general survey of the law and policies of the India shows that the country y ha
s followed must of the provisions of International Convention on Refugees in practice. Taking
this into account, it is clear that India respects international treaties on the treatment of refugees
residing within its territory; but it choose to maintain its own administrative arrangement of
dealing with temporarily or permanent settled refugee's communities.
Indian Practice Regarding Refugee Protection

9
The practice of the Indian Government has been to deal with refugees in three main ways
(a) Refugees in mass influx situation s are received in camp s and accorded temporary protection
by the Indian Government including, sometimes, a certain measure s of socio-economic
protection3.
(b) Asylum seekers from South Asian countries or any other country with which the government
ha s a sensitive relationship, apply to the government for political asylum which is usually
granted without an extensive refugee status determination subject, of course , to political
exigencies;4
(c) Citizens of other countries apply to the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees (UNHCR) for individual refugee status determination in accordance with the terms of
the UNHCR statute and the Refugee Convention5
Indian Government ha s established fairly well experienced bureaucratic machinery
conversant with the problems of refugee administration.
India ha s a three pronged strategy to deal with refugee problem:6
(a) The Home Ministry deals with the formulation of policies of rehabilitation and settlement of
refugees.
(b) The Ministry of External Affairs is empowered with the responsibility of bilateral negotiation
and to deal with the issue s internationally.
(c) The Stat e Governments is entrusted with the responsibility of protection an d maintenance of
the refugee camp s at the local level.
On the other hand, National Human Rights Commission, Minority Commission and Stat e
Human Rights Commission etc., are entrusted for ensuring overall human rights, fundamental
freedom and equal opportunity to all, at national level in their areas.

3
India has received and accommodated mass influx refugees from Tibet and Sri Lanka in special camps with
varying facilities for health, education and employment, as cited in Isha Bothra, "'The Law, Policy and Practice of
Refugee Protection in India", 2007, p. 2, http://www, legal service india.com.
4
Asylum seekers who enter India individually after a mass influx has taken place are granted asylum after a
preliminary screening mechanism. This process continues in the case of Tibetan's and Sri Lankans who enter India
in small number and must fulfill certain criteria before they are registered by the Indian Government as cited in Isha
Bothra, "The Law, Policy and Practice of Refugee Protection in India",2007, p. 2, http:, /www
.legalserviceindia.com.
5
In 2003, the UNHCR handled, inter alia, 10283 refugees from Afghanistan and 940 refugees from Myanmar. The
UNHCR also handles refugees from Iran, Sudan, Somalia and other countries etc as cited in Isha Bothra, "The Law,
Policy and Practice of Refugee Protection in India'",2007, p. 2, h ttp: //\v w w. 1 e ga 1 se r V i c e i n d i a. co
6
Manoj Kumar, "International Human Rights Law for Refugees-An Indian Perspective", The Third Concept, an
International Journal of Ideas, May 2001 , p. 21 .

10
Protection granted to the asylum people in India
Treatment given to the asylum people were divided into three heads:
(a) National treatment
(b) Treatment that is accorded to foreigners
(c) Special treatment.
National Treatment: The national treatment to the asylum people is same as the citizens
of India. There are certain Articles in the Constitution of India, which takes care of the
Fundamental Rights of all people in India. The rights such as equal protection to law under
article 14, religious freedom under article 25, the right to life and personal liberty under article
21, right to social security and educational rights are guaranteed in Part III of the Indian
Constitution.
Treatment that is accorded to foreigners: – Under this head, there are rights which are
related to the housing problems, movements, etc. the rights which are provided under this
treatment are: right to employment or profession under article 17, freedom of residence and
movement under article 26, right to housing under article 21, right to form association under
article 15 and right to property under article 13 of the 1951 Refugee Convention.
Special treatment: – This treatment includes the identity and travel document under
article 28, exemption from penalties under article 3(1) of the 1951 Refugee Convention.

KEY ASSISTANCE AGENCIES FOR REFUGEES

The following organizations play key roles in assisting and protecting refugees worldwide:

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees:-

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) was created in 1951 to
assist in the international protection of refugees. The organization’s primary objective is to
ensure that all persons can exercise the right to seek asylum and find safe refuge in another state,
and to return home voluntarily. One of the agency’s pressing tasks is to encourage governments
to adopt fair and flexible processes to promote just and effective refugee law. When UNHCR
was first established, material aspects of refugee relief (e.g., housing, food) were seen to be the
responsibility of the government that had granted asylum. As many of the world’s more recent
major refugee flows have occurred in less developed countries, however, UNHCR has acquired

11
the additional role of coordinating material assistance for refugees and returnees. Although this
was not UNHCR's original mandate, coordination of material assistance has become one of its
principal functions alongside protection and the promotion of solutions. The International
Organization of Migration (IOM) assists with the return of rejected asylum seekers and refugees
referred by UNHCR.

International Committee of the Red Cross:-

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is an independent humanitarian

organization that acts as a neutral entity in assisting and protecting victims of war, from
providing medical care to victims to arranging exchanges of family messages. As members of
the civilian population, displaced persons benefit from ICRC protection and assistance activities
including the protection of civilians; visits to detainees; medical assistance; food aid; and
restoration of family links between persons separated by war. The ICRC does not have a general
mandate to provide protection and assistance to internally displaced persons. Over the years,
however, it has provided limited assistance to certain groups of internally displaced persons. The
ICRC is considered well placed to provide such help given its experience in humanitarian and
crisis situations. These operations have been carried out at the request of the UN Secretary-
General or the General Assembly, at the request of the country involved.

RIGHTS AVAILABLE TO RECOGNIZED REFUGEES AS PER CONVENTION

Articles 12 - 30 of the Refugee Convention set out the rights which individuals are
entitled to once they have been recognized as Convention refugees:
 All refugees must be granted identity papers and travel documents that allow them to
travel outside the country
 Refugees must receive the same treatment as nationals of the receiving country with
regard to the following rights:
 Free exercise of religion and religious education
 Free access to the courts, including legal assistance
 Access to elementary education
 Access to public relief and assistance
 Protection provided by social security

12
  Protection of intellectual property, such as inventions and trade names
 Protection of literary, artistic and scientific work
 Equal treatment by taxing authorities
 Refugees must receive the most favourable treatment provided to nationals of a foreign
country with regard to the following rights:
 The right to belong to trade unions
 The right to belong to other non-political nonprofit organizations
 The right to engage in wage-earning employment
 Refugees must receive the most favourable treatment possible, which must be at least
as favourable to that accorded aliens generally in the same circumstances, with regard
to the following rights:
 The right to own property
 The right to practice a profession
 The right to self-employment
 Access to housing
 Access to higher education
 Refugees must receive the same treatment as that accorded to aliens generally with
regard to the following rights:
 The right to choose their place of residence
 The right to move freely within the country
 Free exercise of religion and religious education
 Free access to the courts, including legal assistance
 Access to elementary education
 Access to public relief and assistance
 Protection provided by social security
 Protection of intellectual property,
such as inventions and trade names
 Protection of literary, artistic and scientific work
 Equal treatment by taxing authorities

13
 Prohibition on the forced return of a refugee is called nonrefoulement and is one of the
most fundamental principles in international refugee law. This principle is laid out in Article 33
of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which says that no state "shall expel or
return ('refouler' in French) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories
where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality,
membership of a particular social group or political opinion."

Some countries detain asylum seekers upon arrival, during the asylum process or while
waiting for deportation (refoulement). Asylum seekers may have already suffered imprisonment
and Torture in the country from which they have fled. Therefore, The consequences of detention
may be particularly serious, causing severe emotional and psychological stress. Article 31 of the
Refugee Convention says that refugees should not be penalized for having entered a country
illegally if they have come directly from a place where they were in danger and have made
themselves known to the authorities. Therefore, asylum seekers should not be detained for being
in possession of forged identity papers or for destroying identity or travel documents.

Refugees and the Indian Legal Framework

India is home to one of the largest refugee population s in the world. Although the Indian
government claim that its policies conform to international standards, no Indian law refers
directly to refugees. The result is that refugees are treated under the law applicable to aliens. The
Indian government deals with the refugees at both the political and administrative levels.
Refugees encounter the Indian legal system on two counts. There are laws which regulate their
entry into and stay in India. Once they are within the Indian Territory, they are then liable to be
subjected to the provisions of the Indian penal laws for various commissions and omissions
under a variety of circumstances. There are various constitutional and legal provisions with
which refugees may be concerned under varying circumstances. These refugees, numerous
legislative measures were passed and issued under Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution.
But some of the measures have lost their importance in the current context. “There were
certain legislation that was enacted following the partition of India and before the Indian
Constitution came into effect which are given below:”

 East Punjab Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, 1947

14
  UP Land Acquisition (Rehabilitation of Refugees) Act, 1948
 East Punjab Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Act, 1948
 Mysore Administration of Evacuee Property (Emergency) Act, 1949
 Mysore Administration of Evacuee Property (Second Emergency) Act, 1949

Once the Constitution of India came into operation, the following acts were passed relating to
refugees, evacuees and displaced persons:

 Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950

 Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950
 Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951
 Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951
 Influx from Pakistan (Control) Repelling Act, 1952
 Displaced Persons (Claims) Supplementary Act, 1954
 Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954
 Transfer of Evacuee Deposits Act, 1954
 Foreigners Law (Application & Amendment) Act, 1962
 Goa, Daman & Diu Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1969
 Refugee Relief Taxes (Abolition) Act, 1973

Constitutional Framework For Protection of Refugees

The India constitution guarantees certain Fundamental Rights to refugees.
Namely,
1. Right to equality under Article 14,
2. Right to protect in respect of conviction of offences under Article 20,
3. Right to life and personal liberty under Article 21,
4. Right to protection under arbitrary arrest Article 22
5. Right to freedom of religion under Article 25,
6. Right to knock the doors of the supreme court for enforcement of fundamental rights
under Article 32, are as much available to non-citizens, including refugees, as they are to
citizens.

15
 The constitutional rights protect the human rights of the refugee to live with dignity. The
liberal interpretation that Article 21 has received now includes right against solitary confinement,
right against custodial violence, right to medical assistance, shelter, right food etc.
In Chairman, Railway Board vs. Chandrimadas & Other7 The Supreme Court held
that where a foreign national, a Bangladeshi Woman was gang raped compensation can be
granted under public law (Constitution) for violation of fundamental right on the ground of
domestic jurisdiction based on constitutional provisions and Human Rights jurisprudence. The
court said that "where public functionaries are involved and that the matter relates to the
violation of fundamental rights or the enforcement of public duties the remedy would be
available under the public law, not withstanding that a suit could be filed for damages under
private law". It was more so when it was not a mere violation of an ordinary right of a person but
the violation of fundamental right was involved. As petitioner was a victim of rape which is
violation of the fundamental rights of a person guaranteed under article 21 of the constitution. As
regards the question whether fundamental rights are available to a foreign nationals, or not, the
court held that the relief can be granted to the victim for two reasons-firstly on ground of human
rights jurisprudence founded on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, provisions from
convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), and
secondly our constitution guarantees all the basic and fundamental human rights set out in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights to its citizens and other person. This case may be called
as a land mark in taking the jurisprudence of human rights on the highest level placing its
decision on protection of human dignity. Another important feature of this judgment is that it
opened the doors for Public interest Litigation (PIL) in case of a foreign national. In this case
Supreme Court has set up a right precedent in enforcement of human rights of the refugees.

Various types of protection that the Indian Courts have been provided to refugees.
Physical Security
In number of case the supreme court depend on Article 21 of the Indian Constitution to
protection of life and liberty must be provided to refugees absence of legislation to regulate and
justify the stay of refugees in India .In the case of NHRC v. State of Arunachal Pradesh8, the

7
2000 (2) SCC 465; AIR 2000 SC 988
8
AIR 1996 SC 1234

16
court asked the Government of Arunachal Pradesh to perform the duty of protection of life,
health and well-being of Chakmas residing in the state of Arunachal Pradesh and that their
application for citizenship should be forwarded to the concerned authorities and should not be
withheld. In Luis de Raedt Vs. Union India9 and Khudiram Chakma's10 Case the court held that
foreigners are entitled to protection of Article 21 of the constitution Again in this case court
asked the government to protect the refugees with all the might at its command, against the
imminent force threatened by the local population.
Non-Refoulement and the Right of Refugee Status
In a number of cases, Indian courts have protected the rights of refugees where there are
substantial grounds to believe that their life would be in danger. There are cases where the courts
have ordered the life of refugees who are in danger to be safeguarded and have allowed them to
be granted refugees status by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).
The case of U. Myat Kayew and Nayzan Vs. State of Manipur 11 has contributed
substantially to India's refugee policy. It involved eight Burmese people, aged 12 to 58 who were
detained in the Manipur Central jail in Imphal for illegal entry. These people had participated in
the democracy movement, had voluntarily surrendered to the Indian authorities and were taken
into custody. The cases were registered under section 14 of the Foreigners Act for illegal entry
into India. They petitioned for their release, however, to enable them to seek refugee status with
UNHCR in New Delhi. The Gauhati High Court, under Article 21, ruled that asylum seekers,
who enter India, even if illegally, should be permitted to approach the office of the U.N. high
Commissioner to seek refugee status.The Supreme Court of India has in a number of cases
stayed deportation of refugees such as Maiwand's Trust of Afghan Human Freedom. Vs. State of
Punjab12 and N.D. Pancholi Vs. State of Punjab & others13The Supreme Court judgment in the
Chakma refuge case clearly declared that no one shall be deprived of his or her life or liberty
without the due process of law.
Forced Repatriation

9
(1991) 3 scc 554
10
AIR 1994 SC 1461;
11
U. Myat Kayew and Nayzan Vs. State of Manipur (Civil Rule No. 516 of 1991)
12
WP (Crim) 125 & 126/1986
13
WP (Crim) 43/1988

17
In the matter Gurunathan and other vs. Government of India14 The High Court of Madras
expressed its unwillingness to allow any Sri Lankan refugees to be forced to return to Sri Lanka
against their will. The court stayed the repatriation process as it was not voluntary. The court
acknowledged the 'Competence and impartiality' of the UNHCR.15 In P. Neduraman and Dr. S.
Ramadoss vs. Union of India & State of Tamil Nadu16 The madras High Court emphasized the
need to guarantee the voluntary character of repatriation. The NHRC has also come to rescue of
refugees "approaching it with their complaints of violations of Human Rights".
Deportation on Grounds of National Security and Criminal Activities The courts have ruled that
refugees can be deported on the grounds of national security. In Mohammed Siddique Vs.
Government of India17 The court allowed the deportation of refugees under the Foreigners Act
of 1946 if they were found indulging in activities undesirable and prejudicial to the security of
India. In Khadija vs. Union of India18 The High Court of Delhi in New Delhi ruled that
international law and conventions cannot be applied to refugees indulging in criminal activities,
and consequently, they can be repatriated or deported.
Right to leave (Return)
The court has upheld a refugee's right to leave the country. In Nuang Muang Mye Nyant vs.
Government of India19and Shar Aung Vs. Government of India20 The court ruled that even
those refugees against whom cases were pending for illegal entry should be provided exit
provided exit permits to enable them to leave the country for third-country resettlement.
Application of international laws for the protection of Refugees
International law has accepted and defined refugees as a special class of aliens. Does this
acceptance by International law import any legal consequence on the Indian Government in the
absence of any legislation on the subject?
It is true that India has not ratified the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol to it;
however, it acceded to various Human Rights treaties and conventions that contain provisions

14
W P Nos. 6708 and 7916 of 1992.
15
WM P 17372, 17424, 18085 and 18086 of 1992 in W P 12298, 12343 of 1992.
16
W.P. No. 12298 and 12343
17
Mohd. Siddique v. Govt. of India, 1998(47) DRJ (DB) p.74
18
Mst. Khadija a.k.a. Kjudija and Others v. Union of India and Others, Criminal Write Petition No. 658 of 1997;
Crl. W.P. No.658/97 & Crl. Ms.No. 4855/97 and 6657/97, India: High Courts, 4 December 1997, available at:
http://www.refworld.org/cases,IND_HC,3f4b8c7c4.html [accessed 9 December 2017]
19
. In Nuang Muang Mye Nyant Vs. Government of India (C.W.P. No. 5120/ 94)
20
Shar Aung Vs. Government of India (GI. WP No. 110 of 1948),

18
relating to protection of refugees. As a party to these treaties India is under a legal obligation to
protect the human rights of refugees by taking appropriate legislative and administrative
measures under Article 51(c) and Article 253 and also under the same laws it is under the
obligation to uphold the principle of non-refoulement.
In Ktaer Abbas Habib Al Qutafi vs. Union of India21 The High Court of Gujarat in
Ahmadabad Summarized the principles that have emerged from Indian judicial precedents. This
included conformity with international conventions and treaties. Although not enforceable, the
government is obliged to respect them, put the power of the government to expel a foreigner is
still absolute. Meanwhile, Article 21 guarantees the right to life for non-citizens International
covenants and treaties which effectuate these fundamental rights can be enforced. The principal
of non-refoulment is encompassed in Article 21 so long as it is not prejudicial to national
security. Under Article 51 (c) and 253, international law and treaty obligations are to be
respected as long as they are consistent with domestic law. In the case of Khy Htoon and other
Vs. State of Manipuir, The Imphal bench of the Guahati High Courtruled that refugees have
fundamental rights under Article 14,21 and 22 of the Indian Constitution. 'Leave India' Notices:
The administrative authorities vide sec. 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 may issue Leave India
Notice to refugees who have failed to obtain extension of their travel permits, or who are ordered
to be deported by the court. In the case of Gurinder Singh & Karamjit Singh Vs. Union of
India. Afghan Sikhs of Indian origin, who had fled persecution from Afghanistan, were
registered as refugees with UNHCR in New Delhi. They were issued Leave India Notices by the
Foreigners Regional Registration Office to leave India within 7 days of receipt of the notice. The
only remedy under such circumstances is through legal action in the appropriate court. In this
case criminal writ petition was filed in the Punjab and Haryana High at Chandigarh and interim
stay of the leave India notice was obtained.
India is a member of the Executive Committee of the office of United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees which puts a moral, if not legal obligation, on it to build a
constructive partnership with UNHCR by following the provisions of the 1951 Refugee
Convention. With regard to adopting international conventions in domestic laws, in Vishaka v.
State of Rajasthan , the Court observed that reliance can be placed in international laws.
Therefore, the question that arises is whether India can refer to the 1951 Convention in

21
1999 CriLJ 919

19
interpreting the domestic legislation and whether it is really necessary to ratify these
conventions. It is to be noted that merely ratifying the 1951 Convention does not ensure that the
asylum seekers will not be kept out and also Article 42 of the same Convention permits
reservations with respect to the rights of refugees which will defeat the purpose of ratifying the
Convention.
The solution to treat refugees with dignity in India is to either ratify the 1951 Convention
and incorporate it into domestic law or enact a uniform legislation specifically for refugees so
that it is not left to the discretion of the executive and the judiciary to decide their fate.
Need for National Refugee Law in India
Various countries protect their refugees by enacting refugee legislation based on
international recognized principle. The countries that have signed the convention have a
procedure for identifying the refugees and addressing them protection issue.
Although India has not signed the convention but are providing protection to the
refugees. “However, consistency in the procedure for determining refugees is still lacking.”
The Indian legal framework has no uniform law to deal with its huge refugee population,
and has not made may progress towards evolving one either; until then, it chooses to treat
incoming refugees based on their national origin and political considerations, based on their
national origin and political considerations, questioning the uniformity of rights and privileges
granted to refugee communities. Indeed, the National Human rights Commission (NHRC) has
submitted numerous reports urging the promulgation of a national law, or at least, making
changes or amendments to the outdated Foreigners Act (1946), which is the current law
consulted by authorities with regard to refugees and asylum seekers. So the absence of a well
defined national refugee law has created a number of anomalous situations.
It is important to note that India is not a signatory to the 1951 convention relating to the status of
refugees or its 1967 protocol. This makes India's international position in terms of treatment of
refugees, disputable. However, it is equally important to note that India is a signatory to various
other international and regional treaties and conventions relating to Universal Human Rights and
refugees.
Taking this into account, it is clear that India respect international treaties on the
treatment of people residing within its territory. But, without having any refugee policy and any
separate national legislation on the treatment of refugees and furthermore India's hesitation to

20
sign any international convention or even accept any regional or national framework to deal with
refugees as it is of the firm belief that the issue of accepting or rejecting refugees is a unilateral
decision and, therefore, there is no real need to pass an entirely new law to consider multilateral
and bilateral agreement, unnecessarily tarnishes its image at the international level.
Although India's past efforts in dealing with mass influxes has been commendable, its
geopolitical position in the subcontinent makes it a preferred destination for asylum seekers and
refugees. In India refugees, like all foreigners, have free access to the court for the protection of
their life and liberty. India does not discriminate between refugees on the basis of race, political
affiliation or religion all refugees have the complete freedom to practice their religion. However,
in the absence of a specific municipal law incorporating and protecting the rights of refugees, it
is left to the courts to read the provisions of the international human rights instruments into the
provisions of Article 14, 21 and 25 of the constitution. zeal of the Court to protect the rights of
refugees, though commendable, has its limitations. The dangers of judge-centric solutions are
that in many cases the outcome of the case would depend on the outlook of a particular judge to
the issue before him. There indeed cannot be any certainty or uniformity in judicial activism.
There is thus, an urgent need for a legal framework to provide for the protection, rehabilitation
and repatriation of refugees. No doubt judicial creativity has, to some extent, minimized the
rigors of the refugees but legislation alone will provide an effective and permanent solution.
As stated earlier, no current Indian law refers directly to refugees. The primary
documents dealing with the treatment of foreigners/refugees in India are the Registration of
Foreigners Act, 1939, the Foreigners Act, 1939, The Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Foreigners
Order, 1948. Both the Act and the Order affirmatively grant the Indian government powers to
restrict the movement of foreigners inside India, to mandate medical examinations, to limit
employment opportunities, and to control the opportunity to associate, and the ability to "refoul"
or "return", refugees. The Refugees Convention however, bars all these actions. Therefore, the
policy of India toward refugees already matches international standards and is, consequently, not
in need of any change is not acceptable to watchdog agencies like the UNHCR and the NHRC.
NHRC is of the view that it is essential that India develops a national policy and possibly a
national law, fully in consonance with the 1951 UN Convention and the 1967 Protocol.
The need for a refugee law is immediate. The uniform treatment of refugees is a must as
long as India continues to accept asylum seekers across its porous borders. The need for a stable

21
and secure guarantee of refugee protection in India led to the establishment of an Eminent
Persons Group (EPG), chaired by former Chief Justice P.N. Bhagwati, to suggest a model law
for refugee protection. The draft of this proposed law was adopted by the Fourth Annual Meeting
of the Regional Consultation at Dhaka in 1997. The India-specific modal law was born out of
this regional consultative process to provide statutory protection to refugees in the diverse south
Asian region. Despite technical or specific misgivings about the model law, there has been
unanimity about its necessity and widespread acceptance of its use as a framework for future
protection. But the bill was never tabled in Parliament.
The restrictions and unequal treatment imposed on the refugee population by the Indian
government is discriminatory and tarnishes its human rights record, which is not outstanding in
any case. There is an urgent need for India to incorporate its various treaty obligations in the
domestic law of the land to make their obedience by the executive enforceable directly. It is time
now to provide for an appropriate legal framework to process matters in respect of determination
of refugee status, protection from refoulment, and treatment during their stay as refugees. India
to incorporate its various treaty obligations in the domestic law of the land to make their
obedience by the executive enforceable directly. It is time now to provide for an appropriate
legal framework to process matters in respect of determination of refugee status, protection from
refoulment, and treatment during their stay as refugees.
Such a legal framework can make provisions for the following:
 A person shall be excluded from refugee status if he or she is convicted for a crime
against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity;
 No refugee or asylum seeker shall be expelled or returned to a place where there are
reasons to believe his or her life of freedom would be threatened;
 Where an application is made by an asylum seeker for the determination of refugee
status, pending such determination, he shall not be deported or nor any restrictions be
imposed save and except those that are necessary in the interests of sovereignty and
integrity of India or maintenance of public peace and order.
 The determination of refugee status shall be by a Refugee Committee to be prescribed
over by the Commissioner of Refugees who shall be a sitting or retired High Court judge.
 During the determination of his refugees status, the asylum seeker shall be entitled to all
assistance including that of an interpreter and legal practitioner; and

22
  An appeal shall lie against the order of the Refugee Committee.

While India ha s a human rights law regime, an effective National Human Rights Commission
and an innovative, creative an d active judiciary, yet now there is urgent need for a domestic
refugee law regime. India now needs to consolidate , streamline and harmonize into legislation,
its long tradition and experience in accommodating the inflow of refugees, its faith in the
principle of non-refoulment, and its commitment to uphold the principle s of international
human rights.
Since India has no uniform code for determining refugee status, there is no central body that
deals with the refugees. After so many years also, there are various gaps that exist in the
mechanism for dealing with refugees policy. This is because the government has not enacted a
law for refugees.
Due to the several problems faced by the refugees and no proper legislation has not been
passed the legal status of the refugees is miserable.
PART-II

Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) aren’t a new class of persons who have emerged in
the recent past; infact the displacement has been taking place due to armed conflict, ethnic
violence, human rights violations since World War I.
Often the status of refugees is conflated with the status of IDPs, however there exist clear
and distinct differences between both the movements. Though it is accepted that sometimes the
movement of refugees and internally displaced persons’ overlap. While a multilateral treaty
exists for the protection of refugees ( The Convention relating to Status of Refugees, 1951 and its
1967 Protocol) alongwith the mandate of a specialized international institution (United Nations
High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR)), the status of IDPs remains in a flux.
India has been home to thousands of internally displaced people. From Kashmiri Pandits
in 1990s to Muzzaffarnagar riot victims in 2014, India as a country has seen a steep escalation in
the internal movement. However, it remains one of the countries which haven’t recognised
Guiding Principles of Internal Development (GPID), the prime international framework available
for protection of IDPs because of the reason that it came into existence without any
intergovernmental negotiations when more than 17 countries in the world have domesticated the

23
principles into its municipal law. As a result India plays within the vacuum and considers itself
bereft of any obligation under law when both international and domestic legal framework
mandates protection to be awarded to the IDPs

Who can be Termed as IDPS

The definition of IDPs which exist in International Law was provided by Mr. Deng, the
1998 human rights special representative of the Secretary-General while he drafted the GPID
“persons or groups of persons who have been forced or obliged to flee or to leave their
homes or places of habitual residence, in particular as a result of or in order to avoid the effects
of armed conflict, situations of generalized violence, violations of human rights or natural or
human-made disasters, and who have not crossed an internationally recognized State border”
It is important to note that the movement of people has to be against their will and should
be well within the territory of their country in order to be classified as an IDPs. Moreover, the
movement is not just limited to the action/inaction of a state and its agencies, but even
international organizations and corporations can induce displacement.

Also, the list of factors causing internal displacement isn’t exhaustive and other reasons can be
accommodated. Displacement due to developmental projects is one of the examples which are
wide spread and hasn’t been recognized perse in GPID. [It has been recognized in Kampala
Convention, the IDP legal framework of African Union
Despite the fact that definition of IDPs in the GPID is non – legal in nature, the Guiding
Principles have gained international standing and authority.
The Guiding Principles provides for thirty principles which shall be observed by all
authorities, groups and persons irrespective of their legal status and applied without any adverse
distinction.

The following principles ensure to prevent the causes of displacement –

States must prevent and avoid conditions that might lead to displacement (Principle 5);

24
IDPs have a right to be protected against arbitrary displacement (Principle 6); Where
displacement is unavoidable, guarantees should be put in place to minimize its effects (Principle
7);
Displacement should never occur in a manner that violates the rights to life, dignity, liberty
States have a particular obligation to protect against the displacement of groups that have a
special dependency on, or attachment to, the land (Principle 9). .

In addition, Freedom of movement, Right to Life, Right to Education, Right to be recognized as

a person before law, Freedom of expression etc. are well recognized in GPID.

What is the difference between an internally displaced person and a refugee?

According to the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees, a "refugee" is a person who,
"owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality,
membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his
nationality and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of
that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former
habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to
return to it." Subsequent international instruments (such as the Cartagena Declaration on
Refugees and the Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa)
have expanded this definition for some states to persons fleeing the general effects of armed
conflict and/or natural disaster.
A crucial requirement to be considered a "refugee" is crossing an international border. Persons
forcibly displaced from their homes who cannot or choose not to cross a border, therefore, are
not considered refugees, even if they share many of the same circumstances and challenges as
those who do. Unlike refugees, these internally displaced persons do not have a special status in
international law with rights specific to their situation. The term "internally displaced person" is
merely descriptive.
What challenges do internally displaced persons face?
People forced to flee or leave their homes - particularly in situations of armed conflict - are
generally subject to heightened vulnerability in a number of areas. Displaced persons suffer
significantly higher rates of mortality than the general population. They also remain at high risk

25
of physical attack, sexual assault and abduction, and frequently are deprived of adequate shelter,
food and health services.
The overwhelming majority of internally displaced persons are women and children who are
especially at risk of abuse of their basic rights. More often than refugees, the internally displaced
tend to remain close to or become trapped in zones of conflict, caught in the cross-fire and at risk
of being used as pawns, targets or human shields by the belligerents.

What rights do internally displaced persons have?

Like all human beings, internally displaced persons enjoy human rights that are
articulated by international human rights instruments and customary law. In situations of armed
conflict, moreover, they enjoy the same rights as other civilians to the various protections
provided by international humanitarian law.
The Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, created in 1998, restate and compile
existing international human rights and humanitarian law germane to the internally displaced and
also attempt to clarify grey areas and gaps in the various instruments with regard to situations of
particular interest to the internally displaced.
The Guiding Principles note that arbitrary displacement in the first instance is prohibited
(Principles 5-7). Once persons have been displaced, they retain a broad range of economic,
social, cultural, civil and political rights, including the right to basic humanitarian assistance
(such as food, medicine, shelter), the right to be protected from physical violence, the right to
education, freedom of movement and residence, political rights such as the right to participate in
public affairs and the right to participate in economic activities (Principles 10-23). Displaced
persons also have the right to assistance from competent authorities in voluntary, dignified and
safe return, resettlement or local integration, including help in recovering lost property and
possessions. When restitution is not possible, the Guiding Principles call for compensation or
just reparation (Principles 28-30).
International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and Human Rights Law (IHRL)
IHL protects IDPs and prevent displacement through Geneva Convention IV and its
Additional Protocol I and II (AP 1 & II) as well as via customary international law.
Article 49 prohibits individual or mass forcible transfer as well as deportations of
civilians regardless of the motive except when the same is done for the security of population or
when there is an imperative military necessity. Article 51(7) prohibits parties to conflict from

26
directing movement of an entire population or an individual in order to shield military objectives
and evacuation of children (Art. 78(1)). Willful transfer or deportation within or outside its
territory is considered as a grave breach of the Protocol (Art. 85(4)(a)). Further, AP II prohibits
forced movements of civilians because of the reason of the conflict and provides for specific
provision against the transfer of children (Art. 17). Though the IDPs do not come within the
meaning of ‘protected persons’, they are entitled to basic guarantees as provided for individuals
to be treated humanely in all circumstances.
IDPs can seek protection under Human Rights Law via The Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and
the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Other
international human rights treaties relevant to IDP protection and assistance include the
Convention on Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).
Indian Apathy

As per the recent report by The Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) and
the Norwegian Refugee Council, there are over 2.4 million IDPs in 2016 due to conflict, violence
and disaters. Despite this fact, India has expressed fear that such intervention would result in
violation of state sovereignty and that ‘humanitarian aid’ would become a justification for the
interference of powerful states in the affairs of weaker states.
Therefore, incorporation of GPID into domestic law has been limited while 17 countries
have adopted GPID in its municipal law.
In 2005, Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill
was proposed and drafted in the backdrop the Godhra and Bhagalpur Riot146 , with a purpose
to“…to take effective measures to provide for the prevention and control of communal violence
and to rehabilitate the victims of such violence…”.
The bill provided for the rehabilitation of the people affected by the communal violence
and compensation by the State. However, the Bill was centre of many controversies and was
withdrawn eventually in 2014.
The primary responsibility to award protection and humanitarian assistance to IDPs rests
with the State because IDPs are people who haven’t crossed the national boundaries and are well

27
within the country in itself calls for protection within India’s national laws as well as its
international obligations w.r.t. human rights regime.
Union of India has by and large only recognised the movement of Kashmiri Pandits
(KPs) from the valley in early 1990s as displacement. Though KPs are still considered as
‘migrants’ instead of IDPs by the Govt. fearing the humongous responsibility which will dawn
upon them. Also, India frequently denies international humanitarian actors’ access to internally
displaced
The rights guaranteed by GPID are synonymous to rights enshrined in the mentioned
international covenants which have been ratified by India and thus attracting obligations towards
it. The doctrine of pacta sunt servanda mandates India that every treaty in force is binding upon
it and must be performed in good faith and it may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as
a justification for its failure to perform a treaty. Further, Article 18, VCLT places an obligation
on the States to not indulge in any act which would defeat the object and purpose of that treaty
which it has signed or ratified.

On the other hand, Constitution of India remains the charter which primarily protects and
assists IDPs since they haven’t crossed the national borders. IDPs are also governed by the
Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 which provides citizens to seek enforcement of their
human rights which are either guaranteed by Constitution or international covenants. The
principles of GPID are synonymous to the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Part. III of
the Constitution and hence, the same cannot be overlooked.
Fundamental rights extend to IDPs irrespective of their movement from their homes or
habitual place of residence. Therefore, they shall be treated equally (Art.14) without any
discrimination (Art. 15) on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth. They shall be
provided with equal opportunity in public employment (Art. 16) and shall have freedom of
speech and expression alongwith the right to assemble, form associations and to move freely
within territory of India and practice their profession (Art. 19). Further, Article 39 directs the
state to secure its citizens with right to an adequate means of livelihood and Article 41 rests
obligation on the state to make effective provision to secure the right to work, education and to
public assistance. Therefore, IDPs can approach SC or HC under Art. 32 or Art. 226 of the
Constitution to seek redressal of the infringement of their fundamental rights.

28
Need for IDP Law
As a crucial element of sovereignty, it is the Governments of the states where internally
displaced persons are found that have the primary responsibility for their assistance and
protection. The international community's role is complementary.
At the international level, no single agency or organization has been designated as the
global lead on protection and assistance of internally displaced persons. Rather, all are called
upon to cooperate with each other to help address these needs pursuant to the "collaborative
approach".

The lackadaisical attitude of the Indian government to not have a domestic legislation
catering to IDPs is an extension to their stand against recognising Guiding Principles under the
veil of ‘sovereignty’ and principle of ‘non-interference’. International human rights instruments
and the provisions of its own Constitution provides India with the mandate to safeguard the
rights of IDPs and it shall be failing in its duty by not paying heed to the plight of its own
citizens whose status has remain unchanged. Therefore, there is a dire need to acknowledge and
protect the rights of IDPs by bringing out a separate legislation and if the government of the day
lacks political will for the same, the onus shall shift to Indian Judiciary to interpret the
Constitution and International Law in the favour of IDPs.

Conclusion

India has so far dealt with situations of mass influx without a refugee law but with a
continuously enlarging population of refugees and asylum seekers, a large section of who may
not be repatriated in the near future, a uniform law would allow the government to maintain its
huge non-citizen population with more accountability and order, apart from allowing them to
enjoy uniform rights and privileges. No doubt India has done appreciable work concerning
refugees, but a lot more still required to be done for realization and enforcement of human rights
of refugees. Although international legal regime have been accepted by Indian Legal System to
provide people better laws on human rights. These norms are reflected in many decision of
Indian Courts, further India has ratified several international treaties on Human Rights. Also
appreciable is the role of Indian Judiciary, for interpreting constitution of India with the

29
principles of international law and Human rights in protecting the basic rights of refugees.
Further United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, being the main agency to tackle the
refugee matters has played a significant role in the protection of refugees in India. The current
watch dog of India's refugee policy, the NHRC, has made numerous recommendations advising
the formulation of such a law, in accordance with the articles of the convention, but with an Indo
centric nature and content so a national legislation on refugees, combining the humanitarian
needs of the refugees with the security interests of the state, should be enacted.

30