"Principle against refoulement can prima facie be read into Article 21 of the Indian Constitution": Manipur High Court

A petition was filed by Nandita Haksar to seek directions from the State of Manipur in order to provide safe passage to seven Myanmar based individuals that includes four adults and three children. The petition was filed to enable these persons to travel to Delhi to seek protection from United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

The Manipur High Court in the case of Nandita Haksar vs State of Manipur & Ors has granted interim relief for arranging safe transport and passage of these seven Myanmarese persons to Imphal, Manipur from Moreh in Tengnoupal district, Manipur; where the said persons had taken refuge.

The principle of non-refoulement is enshrined in Article 33 (1) of The Refugee Convention, 1951. It is important to note here that India is a party to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and also to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; however India is not a signatory to the Geneva Refugee Convention, 1951. The principle of non-refoulement implies that asylum is granted to persons seeking international protection in their territory, they must follow a course of action that does not lead to expulsion, directly or indirectly, to a place where their life or liberty would be endangered because of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

The Manipur High Court noted that the protection afforded under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, is not limited to citizens and can also be provided to non-citizens, as in the case at hand. It was ordered that seven Myanmarese from Moreh in Imphal District, who are under constant threat of deportation by the authorities, must be protected. The Manipur High Court ordered the state authorities to provide the necessary security to ensure the protection of the seven individuals. The Court however, permitted the District Authorities, Moreh to take these seven persons to Senior Immigration Officer, Moreh for the purpose of formalities, which includes noting their details and obtaining their biometric and biographic particulars.

The principle against refoulement was emphasized by the court, saying that the forced return of the refugees to a country where they are at risk of prosecution, appeared to be read in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The court has also ordered that no coercive steps could be taken by the State or Central Government Authorities in relation to these seven Myanmarese individuals. These persons would be stationed at the residence of the petitioner under adequate security until next hearing. The matter is posted for next hearing on April 26, 2021.