Judicial Activism and Refugee Rights in India: A Constitutional Perspective

Abstract

The refugee crisis in India, though addressed through ad hoc executive decisions, lacks a comprehensive statutory framework. In the absence of formal accession to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, the Indian judiciary has emerged as a critical actor in safeguarding refugee rights. This paper explores the dynamic role played by Indian courts in interpreting constitutional protections for refugees, especially through Articles 141 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. Drawing on key Supreme Court judgments—including the Chakma, Chakraborty, and Sarbananda Sonowal cases—this study illustrates how judicial reasoning incorporates international human rights norms and the principle of non-refoulement into domestic jurisprudence. Using doctrinal and comparative methodologies, the paper assesses judicial activism, the tensions between national security and humanitarian protection, and the emerging legal architecture in refugee jurisprudence. Visuals are included to depict refugee demographics, court decision impacts, and legal timelines. This paper argues for a national refugee law, grounded in constitutional morality and judicial precedent, to ensure consistency, transparency, and justice for all
displaced persons.