The right of refugees to seek asylum is undisputedly provided by international instruments but traditionally, the right to grant asylum has been the prerogative of the state concerned. States have a duty of non-refoulement under Article 33 of the Refugee Convention, prohibiting the expulsion or return of refugees. Given the correlation between International Human Rights Law and International Refugee Law, non-refoulement comprises non-rejection at the frontiers as well. Despite the principle being a part of customary international law, due to the ambiguity prevailing in its application, it is constantly flouted by the member-states. Further, as the principle of non-refoulement includes the duty to not reject refugees at frontiers, the lack of economic stability of a state is not accepted as a defence to non-acceptance of the refugees. Moreover, countries like India that are non-signatories to the convention are not bound to adhere to International Refugee Law. Yet, India continues to accept refugees and makes efforts to comply with international norms, despite not having national legislation for the same. Therefore, there is a need for India to formulate a robust legal framework in furtherance of its humanitarian objective.
Siddeeqa Iram (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: