Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Parliamentary Proceedings, Response of National Human Rights Commission and Institutions Towards Refugees in India

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Refugee Law in India

  • 275 Accesses

Abstract

The descriptive study in this chapter suggests that there is a mixed situation in terms of arrival of refugees such that the largest number of refugees have arrived in large groups (i.e., from Tibet, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh—formerly East Pakistan) which can be called mass influx, while a small number have arrived individually (i.e., from countries in Central Asia, the Middle East and Africa). Parliamentary proceedings and the role of the National Human Rights Commission of India are highlighted.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See List of Questions Related to Refugees in Rajya Sabha.

  2. 2.

    See List of Questions Related to Refugees in Lok Sabha.

  3. 3.

    Lok Sabha, Un-starred Question No. 3693, Answered on 13.12.2000.

  4. 4.

    Lok Sabha, Un-starred Question No. 277, Answered on 21.02.2006.

  5. 5.

    Rajya Sabha, Starred Question No. 2533, Answered on 16.08.2000.

  6. 6.

    Lok Sabha, Starred Question No. 406, Answered on 22.08.2000.

  7. 7.

    Lok Sabha, Un-starred Question No. 5631, Answered on 02.05.2002.

  8. 8.

    Lok Sabha, Un-starred Question No. 3952, Answered on 20.12.2005.

  9. 9.

    Lok Sabha, Starred Question No. 224, Answered on 08.08.2006.

  10. 10.

    Lok Sabha, Un-starred Question No. 3943, Answered on 20.04.2010.

  11. 11.

    Rajya Sabha, Un-starred Question No. 2999, Answered on 06.08.2014.

  12. 12.

    Rajya Sabha, Starred Question No. 82, Answered on 20.11.1997.

  13. 13.

    Lok Sabha, Un-starred Question No. 2952, Answered on 14.03.2000.

  14. 14.

    Lok Sabha, Starred Question No. 338, Answered on 16.04.2002.

  15. 15.

    Lok Sabha, Un-starred Question No. 4423, Answered on 04.08.2009.

  16. 16.

    Lok Sabha, Un-starred Question No. 7820, Answered on 16.05.2000.

  17. 17.

    Lok Sabha, Un-starred Question No. 4256, Answered on 21.08.2001.

  18. 18.

    Lok Sabha, Un-starred Question No. 5874, Answered on 24.08.2004.

  19. 19.

    Lok Sabha, Un-starred Question No. 768, Answered on 29.02.2000.

  20. 20.

    Lok Sabha, Un-starred Question No. 1030, Answered on 07.12.2004.

  21. 21.

    Lok Sabha, Un-starred Question No. 5433, Answered on 29.08.2001.

  22. 22.

    Lok Sabha, Un-starred Question No. 5470, Answered on 30.04.2002.

  23. 23.

    See Dawa Norbu, ‘Refugees from Tibet: Structural Causes of Successful Settlements’ 26(2) The Tibet Journal 3, 8.

  24. 24.

    Rajya Sabha, Starred Question No. 75, Answered on 02.03.2016.

  25. 25.

    Rajya Sabha, Un-starred Question No. 1175, Answered on 04.05.2016.

  26. 26.

    Rajya Sabha, Un-starred Question No. 494, Answered on 26.02.1997.

  27. 27.

    Lok Sabha, Un-starred Question No. 4511, Answered on 30.08.2011.

  28. 28.

    Rajya Sabha, Starred Question No. 69, Answered on 29.04.2015.

  29. 29.

    Lok Sabha, Un-starred Question No. 270, Answered on 25.07.2000.

  30. 30.

    Lok Sabha, Un-starred Question No. 3397, Answered on 20.03.2001.

  31. 31.

    Rajya Sabha, Un-starred Question No. 1445, Answered on 10.03.2010.

  32. 32.

    Lok Sabha, Un-starred Question No. 3575, Answered on 12.12.2000.

  33. 33.

    Rajya Sabha, Starred Question No. 456, Answered on 24.04.2008.

  34. 34.

    Lok Sabha, Un-starred Question No. 5875, Answered on 24.08.2004.

  35. 35.

    Rajya Sabha, Un-starred Question No. 1483, Answered on 09.03.2011.

  36. 36.

    Rajya Sabha, Un-starred Question No. 507, Answered on 13.08.2014.

  37. 37.

    Lok Sabha, Un-starred Question No. 7538, Answered on 22.05.2012.

  38. 38.

    Lok Sabha, Un-starred Question No. 739, Answered on 15.07.2014.

  39. 39.

    Rajya Sabha, Un-starred Question No. 2744, Answered on 17.12.2014.

  40. 40.

    Lok Sabha, Un-starred Question No. 894, Answered on 01.03.2016.

  41. 41.

    Ranabir Samaddar, ‘Introduction’ in Ranabir Samaddar (ed), Refugees and the State: Practices of Asylum and Care in India, 1947–2000 (SAGE, New Delhi 2003) 21.

  42. 42.

    See generally Annu Jalais, ‘Dwelling on Morichjhanpi: When Tigers Became Citizens, Refugees Tiger-Food' [2005] 40(17) Economic & Political Weekly 1757–1762; K. Maudood Elahi, ‘Refugees in Dandakaranya’ [1981] 15 (1/2) The International Migration Review 219–225; Ross Mallick, ‘Refugee Resettlement in Forest Reserves: West Bengal Policy Reversal and the Marichjhapi Massacre’ [1999] 58(1) The Journal of Asian Studies 104–125; Victor Barnouw, ‘The Sindhis, Mercantile Refugees in India: Problems of Their Assimilation’ [1966] 27(1) Phylon40–49; Joya Chatterji, ‘'Dispersal' and the Failure of Rehabilitation: Refugee Camp-dwellers and Squatters in West Bengal’ [2007] 41(5) Modern Asian Studies 995–1032.

  43. 43.

    The “calculation” in the kindness refers to the admission of refugees into the United States of America from communist countries as a way of underlining a political message. The door was “half open” because almost no refugees from right-wing dictatorships have been admitted. For further discussion on calculated kindness based on America’s history of providing asylum to refugees from communist countries, see Gil Loescher and John A. Scanlan, ‘Calculated Kindness: Refugees and America’s Half Open Door, 1945 to the Present’ The Free Press (New York 1986) 209.

  44. 44.

    See 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 (SAGE, New Delhi 2003) 443.

  45. 45.

    See generally Omar Chaudhary, ‘Turning Back: An Assessment of Non-Refoulement under Indian Law’ [2004] 39(29) Economic & Political Weekly 3257–3264; Abhijit Dasgupta, ‘Repatriation of Sri Lankan Refugees: Unfinished Tasks’ [2003] 38(24) Economic & Political Weekly 2365–2367; Gautam Ghosh, ‘God is a Refugee: Nationality, Morality and History in the 1947 Partition of India’ [1998] 42(1) The International Journal of Social and Cultural Practice 33–62.

  46. 46.

    Act No. 10 of 1994.

  47. 47.

    Ibid. Section 12(a).

  48. 48.

    Ibid. Section 12(d).

  49. 49.

    Ibid. Section 12(f).

  50. 50.

    Annual Report, National Human Rights Commission [1994–1995] 41–42.

  51. 51.

    See generally Nirmala Chandrahasan, ‘Access to Justice and Aliens: Some Insights into Refugee Groups in India’ [1998] 16 Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 135, 142.

  52. 52.

    See Chunnu Prasad, ‘Students’ Movements in Arunachal Pradesh and the Chakma-Hajong Refugee Problem’ [2007] 42(15) Economic & Political Weekly 1373, 1375.

  53. 53.

    Annual Report, National Human Rights Commission [1995–1996] 61–62.

  54. 54.

    The National Human Rights Commission took this step under Section 18(b) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 which reads: “Section 18. Steps during and after inquiry: The Commission may take any of the following steps during or upon the completion of an inquiry held under this Act, namely:- (b) approach the Supreme Court or the High Court concerned for such directions, orders or writs as that Court may deem necessary.”

  55. 55.

    National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Anr, (1996) 1 SCC 742. See also Chunnu Prasad, ‘Migration and the Question of Citizenship: People of Chittagong Hill Tract in Arunachal Pradesh’ [2006] 67(3) The Indian Journal of Political Science 471, 480.

  56. 56.

    Annual Report, National Human Rights Commission [1997–1998] 24.

  57. 57.

    Ibid. Para.4.12.

  58. 58.

    Ibid. Para.4.13.

  59. 59.

    Ibid. Para.4.14.

  60. 60.

    Annual Report, National Human Rights Commission [1999–2000] 45–46.

  61. 61.

    Annual Report, National Human Rights Commission [2000–2001] 46–47.

  62. 62.

    Ibid. Para.4.23.

  63. 63.

    Ibid. Para.4.24.

  64. 64.

    Annual Report, National Human Rights Commission [2002-2003] 75–76.

  65. 65.

    Ibid. Para.5.20.

  66. 66.

    Ibid. Para.5.21

  67. 67.

    Annual Report, National Human Rights Commission [2003–2004] 55

  68. 68.

    Ibid. Para.5.22.

  69. 69.

    UNHCR Sub-regional Operations Profile- South Asia [2015] http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e4876d6.html accessed November 19, 2015.

  70. 70.

    Ibid.

  71. 71.

    Lok Sabha, Un-starred Question No. 6307, Answered on: 05.05.2015.

  72. 72.

    Chimni (n 44) 459.

  73. 73.

    Sarbani Sen, ‘Paradoxes of the International Regime of Care: The Role of the UNHCR in India’ in Ranabir Samaddar (ed), Refugees and the State: Practices of Asylum and Care in India, 1947-2000 (SAGE, New Delhi 2003) 396, 399.

  74. 74.

    Ibid.; see generally Franz Michael, ‘Survival of a Culture: Tibetan Refugees in India’ [1985] 25(7) Asian Survey 737, 739; Dorsh Marie de Voe, ‘The Refugee Problem and Tibetan Refugees’ [1981] 6(3) Tibet Journal 22, 25.

  75. 75.

    Sen (n73) 400.

  76. 76.

    Sen (n73) 401.

  77. 77.

    Chimni (n 44) 458; see also Mike Sanderson, ‘The Role of International Law in Defining the Protection of Refugees in India’ [2015] 33 Wisconsin International Law Journal 55.

  78. 78.

    Chimni (n 44) 459; sanderson (n 77) 56.

  79. 79.

    Sanderson (n 77) 56.

  80. 80.

    Rose Varghese, ‘Country Paper—India’, Presented at the Seventh Informal Regional Consultation on Refugees and Migratory Movements in South Asia (December 15–16, 2002 New Delhi).

  81. 81.

    See United Nations, G.A. Re s. 1166 (XII), 5, U.N. Doe. A/RES/I 166 (XII), Nov. 26, 1957; Economic and Social Council, Establishment of the Executive Committee of the Programme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, E.S.C. Res. 672 (XXV), 1(a), E/RES/672, April 30, 1958.

  82. 82.

    Sanderson (n 77) 58; Jerry Sztucki, ‘The Conclusions on the International Protection of Refugees Adopted by the Executive Committee of the UNHCR Programme’ [1989] 1 International Journal of Refugee Law 298.

  83. 83.

    Pia Oberoi, ‘Regional Initiatives on Refugee Protection in South Asia’ [1999] 11 International Journal of Refugee Law 197, 198.

  84. 84.

    See generally Markandey Katju, ‘India’s Perception of Refugee Law’ [2001] 1 ISIL Yearbook of International Humanitarian and Refugee Law 251; V. Suryanarayan, ‘Need for National Refugee Law’ [2001] 11 ISIL Yearbook of International Humanitarian and Refugee Law 254, 254.

  85. 85.

    See B. S. Chimni, ‘Reforming the International Refugee Regime: The Dialogic Model’ [2001] 14(2) Journal of Refugee Studies 151, 162.

  86. 86.

    Oberoi (n 83) 198.

  87. 87.

    Oberoi (n 83) 199.

  88. 88.

    Oberoi (n 83) 201.

  89. 89.

    Probodh Saxena, ‘Creating Legal Space for Refugees in India: the Milestones Crossed and the Roadmap for the Future’ [2007] 19 International Journal of Refugee Law 246, 272.

  90. 90.

    See T. Ananthachari, ‘Refugees in India: Legal Framework, Law Enforcement and Security’ [2001] 1ISIL Yearbook of International Humanitarian and Refugee Law 119.

  91. 91.

    Ibid. 249.

  92. 92.

    See generally Arun Sagar and Farrah Ahmed, ‘The Model Law for Refugees: An Important Step Forward?’ [2005] 17 Student Bar Review 74.

  93. 93.

    See B.S. Chimni, ‘The Geopolitics of Refugee Studies: A View from the South’ [1998] 11(4) Journal of Refugee Studies 350, 352.

  94. 94.

    See Fali S. Nariman, ‘Refugee Protection’ [2002] 2ISIL Yearbook of International Humanitarian and Refugee Law 07, 10; see generally Ranabir Samaddar, ‘Institutional Requirement on Protection and Care of the Victims of Forced Migration in South Asia’ [2002] 2 ISIL Yearbook of International Humanitarian and Refugee Law 74, 75.

  95. 95.

    See Section 3.2.3 for elaborate discussion.

  96. 96.

    See Section 3.1.1.6 for elaborate discussion.

  97. 97.

    See Section 3.1.1.1 and Section 3.2.3 for elaborate discussion.

  98. 98.

    Samaddar (n 94) 86.

  99. 99.

    B.S. Chimni, ‘The Legal Condition of Refugees in India’ [1994] 7 Journal of Refugee Studies 378, 400.

  100. 100.

    Ibid.

  101. 101.

    See generally Saurabh Bhattacharjee, ‘India Needs a Refugee Law’ [2008] 43(9) Economic & Political Weekly 71, 75.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata, India

    Shuvro Prosun Sarker

Authors
  1. Shuvro Prosun Sarker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sarker, S.P. (2017). Parliamentary Proceedings, Response of National Human Rights Commission and Institutions Towards Refugees in India. In: Refugee Law in India. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4807-4_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4807-4_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-4806-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-4807-4

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation