India has long been hailed as a moral and material sanctuary for displaced populations in South Asia. Despite not being a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol, the country has crafted a robust historical identity as a haven for persecuted communities. From the Zoroastrians fleeing Iran in the 8th century, to the Tibetans escaping Chinese repression in 1959, and the Chakmas and Hajongs from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) in the 1960s, India has welcomed diversity with open arms. During World War II, India also hosted Polish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution. In the 1980s and 1990s, the country welcomed Tamil refugees arriving from Sri Lanka, which allowed them to settle in southern India with relative administrative tolerance.
India’s migration policy was based on more than cultural ethos; it was rooted in customary international law, constitutional protections, and the Gandhian–Nehruvian vision of human dignity and asylum, and was often exercised through executive discretion and judicial compassion. India’s judiciary has traditionally defended refugee rights by invoking Article 21 of India’s Constitution which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, through which the country has implicitly recognised the international legal principle of non-refoulement—most notably in the landmark judgment National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh (1996). In recent years, this moral high ground has slowly begun to erode. This erosion is increasingly evident in the government’s treatment of the Rohingya, a stateless Muslim minority displaced by ethnic cleansing in Myanmar.
India’s Response to the Rohingya Crisis: The Early Years
Having faced systemic discrimination in Myanmar for decades, violence toward the Rohingya people reached genocidal levels during the 2012 Rakhine State riots, and later escalated to the 2017 military-led operations that forced over 700,000 Rohingya out of Myanmar and into neighbouring countries such as Bangladesh and India. An estimated 40,000 Rohingya fled to India, settling in urban slums in the areas of Assam, Jammu, Delhi, Hyderabad, and Mewat (Haryana).
In the early days, India maintained a measured silence by allowing United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) to both register and issue refugee status cards to Rohingya immigrants entering Delhi. At that time, UNHCR’s mandate recognized approximately, 17,500 Rohingya. Unlike the Tibetan or Tamil refugees, the Rohingya never received official refugee status by the government, nor were they socially integrated into communities. Indian officials publicly referred to them as “illegal immigrants” and “potential security threats,” greatly departing from India’s treatment of other refugee groups in the past.
By 2017, the shift became all the more apparent when the Ministry of Home Affairs announced that all Rohingya would be identified and immediately deported to Myanmar. The government cited to national security concerns and alleged terror group affiliations to justify its decision—a claim that has never been substantiated with public evidence.
May 2025 Maritime Deportation
On 6 May, Delhi police officers arrested a group of 43 refugees from Delhi under the pretext of “biometric data collection.” Among them were women, children, elderly, and individuals battling cancer—many of whom possessed valid UNHCR cards. Authorities then detained the refugees in various police stations across New Delhi for over 24 hours, denying them family visits and access to lawyers.
Later that night, authorities blindfolded the detainees, binding their hands and shuttling them to Indira Gandhi International Airport via chartered busses. From there, the detainees were flown to Port Blair in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands—approximately 2,500 kms from Delhi. Upon landing, police transferred the blindfolded detainees aboard an Indian naval vessel berthed offshore. Survivors reported being tortured, sexually abused, and accused of terrorism while onboard.
In the early hours of 8 May, and after depriving detainees of food, water and medical care for nearly two days, naval personnel threw the detainees overboord into the Andaman Sea near Myanmar. Naval personnel ordered them to swim toward a “safe” international refuge, stranding them in open water with only life jackets. While unaccompanied children and those battling illnesses faced a high risk of drowning, there are no reports to show how many survived. Of those who did, survivors later reported that they reached Myanmar shores by sheer luck given their exhausted states. According to some reports, detainees had asked the naval authorities to take them closer to the Bangladesh border due to persecution fears in Myanmar.
These events were disclosed to a Supreme Court of India bench (Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta & N. Kotiswar Singh) on 8 May during ongoing the Rohingya litigation, yet the court declined to grant interim relief, adjourning the matter to 31 July 2025.
On 13 May, two of the deportees filed Mohammad Ismail v. Union of India (Diary No. 25892/2025), seeking an immediate return to Indian custody, release from unlawful detention, compensation of ₹5 million per person, and formal recognition of their UNHCR refugee status.
The parties’ petition asserts that Indian authorities subjected them to the physical brutality of being blindfolded, bound, and forced swim in international waters, referencing the procedural cruelty towards stateless persons cast adrift without due process.
Recently, Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma of Assam—a border State in India—publicly acknowledged that his government would begin “pushing back” Rohingya refugees held in detention centres to Bangladesh instead of processing them through India’s legal system. He described this method as a “new approach” to immigration in which the government would use expedited returns in lieu of formal arrests and prosecution. This government action emphasizes the state’s shift from judicial oversight to summary expulsion in the handling of non-citizens.
On 15 May 2025, UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar Tom Andrews condemned the reported maritime deportation as “nothing short of outrageous” and opened a formal inquiry into what he called “unconscionable, unacceptable acts” by Indian authorities. In the UN press release, Andrews referenced credible reports of Indian authorities blindfolding Rohingya refugees, transferring them to naval vessels in Port Blair, and then forcing them into the Andaman Sea, which he said represents a “blatant disregard for the lives and safety of those who require international protection.” Andrews implored the Indian government to “provide a full accounting of what happened,” urging the government to gather first-hand testimonies and to refrain from any inhumane or life-threatening treatment of refugees. He further warned that such acts would violate the principle of non-refoulement under international law.
In an earlier communication sent on 3 March 2025, Andrews urged New Delhi to end the arbitrary and indefinite detention of Rohingya asylum seekers, including those previously held in Assam and Delhi, and to allow UNHCR and other independent monitors full access to detention facilities. He stated that any forced repatriation of the Rohingya to Myanmar—where they face a grave risk of torture, persecution, and death—must cease immediately, and that officials responsible for these reported violations must be held accountable. This call by the Special Rapporteur is crucial to reaffirming India’s customary international law obligations and the government’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to protect all individuals from refoulement and inhuman treatment.
National and International Legal Frameworks
Although India does not have a national refugee law, the Constitution offers some protection to noncitizens. Article 14 guarantees equality under the law, Article 21 protects life and liberty, and Article 51(c) provides that the government must respect both international laws and treaty obligations.
In the landmark judgements Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and NHRC v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, the Supreme Court extended constitutional protections to all persons and not just citizens. Despite these precedents, the executive circumvented these principles by labeling the Rohingya “illegal migrants” under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and The Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920. These laws predate the Constitution and grant the government discretionary powers to detain and deport noncitizens.
Turning to international frameworks, even though India is not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its Protocol, it is still bound by customary international law and the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits states from returning migrants to countries where they face heightened persecution risks. India is also a party to the Convention Against Torture (CAT)—which it has signed, but not ratified—and to the ICCPR, both of which prohibit states from arbitrarily detaining, torturing, and subjecting people to inhumane treatment. Article 7 of the ICCPR prohibits states from refouling migrants if such return would result in torture or degrading treatment, as this constitutes a violation of international law. Similarly, Article 9 of the ICCPR obligates India to protect a person’s liberty and security rights. Deporting migrants at sea without due process violates all of India’s international legal obligations, as does the country’s ongoing deportations of Rohinya to Myanmar despite repeated, urgent appeals from UN Special Rapporteurs and UNHCR.
Maktoob Media reports have touched on the social impacts of India’s maltreatment and deportation practices of Rohingya groups, which include social marginalisation, digital exclusion due to the government’s denial of Aadhaar and Unique Identity cards, elevated school dropout rates, and increasing economic hardship.
Many Rohingya detainees report being held indefinitely by Indian authorties and being denied access to counsel for years on end. Some had UNHCR refugee cards, which were dismissed by Indian authorities as invalid. One detainee testified that her infant daughter died due to denial of medical care after Indian authorities tear-gassed a group of Rohingya detainees trying to escape the center.
These incidents violate several fundamental legal protections, including Article 6 of the ICCPR, which guarantees the inherent right to life; Article 14, which ensures the right to a fair and public hearing; and Article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which guarantees children’s access to medical care. They also contravene Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. UNHCR and other UN bodies have issued regular reports and updates noting India’s increasing reliance on detention and refoulement despite the UNHCR’s mandate registration of many Rohingya.
India’s Retreat from Moral Leadership
India has long positioned itself on the global stage as a moral leader—an advocate for the oppressed and a vanguard of South-South cooperation. In 1959, first Prime Minister of India Jawaharlal Nehru said of Tibetan refugees, “…we have considered it our duty to receive these Tibetan people who have come to India and to help them to rehabilitate themselves.” This political sentiment reemerged during the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War, where India sheltered over 10 million refugees.
However, the Indian government’s current approach to Rohingya refugees marks a steep moral and strategic departure from the government’s previous mentality. Communal politics, security narratives, and majoritarian nationalism all have eclipsed India’s historical traditions of welcoming refugees. The 2019 Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA)—which explicitly excludes Muslims from fast-tracked citizenship—has further undermined India’s secular refugee policy and its commitment to upholding international law.
India’s longstanding decision not to ratify the 1951 Refugee Convention, combined with the government’s refusal to explain this stance or enact a domestic refugee law, has shifted from a posture of strategic ambiguity to one of legal hostility. Official government statements and public policy shows that refugees, especially Muslim minorities like the Rohingya, are now viewed as demographic threats instead of victims. If India continues this trajectory, it not only endangers thousands of vulnerable lives, but also forfeits its historic identity as a nation that stood quietly, but firmly, on the side of the displaced. If authorities fail to investigate the government’s recent deportation of Rohingya refugees, fail to restore legal protections, and prioritize political expedience over constitutional values, India will not merely be turning away refugees—it will be turning away from itself. The May 2025 maritime deportation marks the culmination of a policy that prioritizes majoritarian nationalism over constitutional morality. The ongoing case of Mohammad Ismail v. Union of India offers the Supreme Court a chance to reaffirm India’s Article 21 constitutional protections and its international legal obligations. There is an urgent need for judicial intervention to restore India’s asylum ethos and prevent further erosion of human dignity.
Opinions expressed in JURIST Commentary are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}