Proportionality Analysis and Non-refoulement Jurisprudence in India: A Comparative Approach
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17561/tahrj.v24.8728Keywords:
Non-refoulement, proportionality analysis, wednesbury principle, ECtHR, African CourtsAbstract
India does not have an explicit refugee regime and most of the jurisprudence on refugee protection comes from the judgements. However, in the absence of law or explicit domestication of international refugee law, the Supreme Court of India (SCI) struggles with consistent interpretation of non-refoulement. Many scholars suggest the presence of non-refoulement as a substantive right under the Right to life in the Constitution of India (1950). However, it has not been consistently accepted. Significantly Art 21 allows limitation in the form of ‘procedure established by law’, to avail constitutional justification for limiting non-refoulement rights citing national security concerns. An analysis of the recent repatriation judgment of SC of India suggests the application of the Wednesbury-like approach which is aimed at finding a reasonable justification for the state’s action without getting into the ‘balancing mechanism’. This article adopts comparative, analytical and doctrinal methodology to examine how the Indian Judiciary can utilize the proportionality analysis in non-refoulement cases to attain better outcomes. Firstly, this article explains the concepts of Wednesbury and Proportionality Analysis rooted in European Jurisprudence and its application by the EctHR, the Inter-American System of Human Rights and the African Courts. In the absence of any consistent European and American scholarship, this article draws from the African court’s jurisprudence to understand how proportionality analysis is interpreted regionally and applied by national courts (Kenyan High Court) in non-refoulement cases. Finally, the article suggests that without any constitutional provision of limitation (like in Kenya), the Supreme Court of India needs to adopt the ‘rainbow of review’ approach in refoulement decisions to achieve better outcomes. This would allow the SC to make a gradual shift towards the proportionality analysis from the Wednesbury principle, depending on the criticality of human rights violation, without signalling a complete change in judicial attitude.
References
Books
ELLIS, E. (1999). The Principle of Proportionality in the Laws of Europe. Hart Publishing.
GOODWIN, G. S. and MCADAM, J. (1996). The Refugee in International Law. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
HAILBRONNER, K. and HATHAWAY, J. C. (2005). The Rights of Refugees Under International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
HARRIS, D. J. et al. (1995). Harris, O’Boyle and Warbrick: Law of the European Convention of Human Rights. London: Butterworths.
JOSEPH, P. A. (2007). Constitutional and Administrative Law in New Zealand. 3rd ed. Wellington: Brookers.
Chapters
CASSESE, A. (1993). ‘Prohibition of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment’, in MACDONALD, R. S. J. (ed.) The European system for the protection of human rights. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, pp. 225. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004633599_017
CHANDRA, A. (2020). ‘Limitation Analysis by the Indian Supreme Court’, in KREMNITZER, M., STEINER, T., and LANG, A. (eds.) Proportionality in Action: Comparative and Empirical Perspectives on the Judicial Practice. Cambridge Studies in Constitutional Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 458-541. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108596268.009
GILBERT, G. (2003). ‘Current issues in the application of the exclusion clauses’, in FELLER, E., TURK, V., and NICHOLSON, F. (eds.) Refugee Protection in International Law: UNHCR’s Global Consultations on International Protection. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 425. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511493973.023
HUNT, M. (2009). ‘Against Bifurcation’, in DYZENHAUS, D., HUNT, M., and HUSCROFT, G. (eds.) A Simple Common Lawyer: Essays in Honour of Michael Taggart. Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 99.
KNIGHT, D. R. (2008). ‘A Murky Methodology: Standards of Review in Administrative Law’, in GEIRINGER, C. and KNIGHT, D. R. (eds.) Seeing the World Whole: Essays in Honour of Sir Kenneth Keith. Wellington: Victoria University Press, pp. 180.
LAUTERPACHT, S. E. and BETHLEHEM, D. (2009). ‘The scope and content of the principle of non-refoulement: Opinion’, in FELLER, E., TURK, V., and NICHOLSON, F. (eds.) Refugee Protection in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 87. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511493973.008
LIXINSKI, L. (2019). ‘Balancing Test: Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR)’, in FABRI, H. R. (ed.) Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Procedural Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4253276
TAKIS, T. (2018). ‘The Principle of Proportionality’, in SCHUTZE, R. and TRIDIMAS, T. (eds.) Oxford Principles of European Union Law: The European legal order. United Kingdom; online edn, Oxford Academic.
Journal articles
ALEXANDER, A. (2021). ‘Critical Analysis of Mohammad Salimullah v. Union of India: Has the Supreme Court of India Acted as Executive?’, CMR University Journal for Contemporary Legal Affairs.
BALAKRISHNAN, K. G. (2010). ‘The Role of Foreign Precedents in a Country’s Legal System’, National Law School of India Review, 22 (1), pp. 1-16
CRAIG, P. P. (2010). ‘Proportionality, Rationality and Review’, New Zealand Law Review, p. 265.
ELLIOTT, M. (2001). ‘The Human Rights Act 1998 and the Standard of Substantive Review’ Cambridge Law Journal, 60, p. 301.
HATHAWAY, J. C. and HARVEY, C. J. (2001). ‘Framing Refugee Protection in the New World Disorder’, Cornell International Law Journal, 34, pp. 257-320.
KNIGHT, D. (2010). ‘Mapping the Rainbow of Review: Recognising Variable Intensity’, New Zealand Law Review, p. 393.
MAVRONICOLA, N. and MESSINEO, F. (2013). ‘Relatively absolute? The undermining of Article 3 ECHR in Ahmad v UK’, The Modern Law Review, 76(6), pp. 1025-1048
MCHARG, A. (1999). ‘Reconciling Human Rights and the Public Interest: Conceptual Problems and Doctrinal Uncertainty in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights’, The Modern Law Review, 62(5), pp. 671-696.
MULLAN, D. (2010). ‘Proportionality — A Proportionate Response to an Emerging Crisis in Canadian Judicial Review Law?’, New Zealand Law Review, 233.
SALES, P. and STEYN, K. (2004). ‘Legitimate Expectations in English Public Law: An Analysis’ Public Law, pp. 588–591.
SCOVAZZI, T. (2016). ‘The Effect of European Court of Human Rights Case Law on Domestic Courts: A Review of the Literature’, European Journal of International Law, p. 74.
SLAUGHTER, A (1994). ‘The Typology of Transjudicial Communication’, University of Richmond Law Review, 29, p. 99.
SRIRANGAM, V. (2016). ‘A Difference in Kind – Proportionality and Wednesbury’, International Sustainable Law Review, 4, DOI: https://doi.org/10.14296/islr.v4i1.2335.
SWEET, A.S. and MATHEWS, J. (2008). ‘Proportionality Balancing and Global Constitutionalism’, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 47, pp. 68-149.
TAGGART, M. (2008). ‘Proportionality, Deference, Wednesbury’, New Zealand Law Review, p. 423.
TEFERRA, Z. M. (2018). ‘Revisiting the Rule of Non-refoulement and its Exceptions: Does Article 33(2) of the 1951 Refugee Convention Require the Application of the Principle of Proportionality?’, African Yearbook of International Law Online, 23(1), pp. 304-332.
Webpages/Websites/Other media
CHANDRA, A. (2004). ‘Proportionality in India: A Bridge to Nowhere’, Oxford Human Rights Hub, 64. Available at: https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/proportionality-in-india-a-bridge-to-nowhere (Accessed: 04.09.24).
FRANTZIOU, E. (2014). ‘UCL Policy Briefing-October 2014; The margin of appreciation doctrine in European human rights law’. UCL Laws. Available at: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/public-policy/sites/public-policy/files/migrated-files/European_human_rights_law.pdf (Accessed: 04.10.24).
KUMAR, A. (2018). ‘Situating the Principle of Non-Refoulement in the Indian Legal Scenario’. Social Science Research Network. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3316317 (Accessed: 02.10.24).
UN HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES (UNHCR) (1997). ‘UNHCR Note on the Principle of Non-Refoulement’. Available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/438c6d972.html (Accessed: 02.09.24).
Conference Papers
SAGÜÉS, P. N. (2013). ‘Panel I. Diálogo jurisprudencial y Control de Convencionalidad. Una mirada comparada’. Seminario Internacional Diálogo Jurisprudencial e Impacto de las Sentencias de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. Mexico City, 11 October 2013 pp. 8-11.
Legal and Judicial sources
Legal References
American Convention on Human rights, 1969.
Constitution of India 1950.
Convention on the Status of Refugees (189 U.N.T.S. 150, entered into force April 22, 1954). United Nations. 1951.
Foreigners ACT, 1946.
The Constitution of Kenya [Kenya] 2010.
UN Declaration on Territorial Asylum, G.A res. 2312 (XXII), 1967.
Case law
Advisory Opinion OC-21/14, Rights and Guarantees of Children in the Context of Migration and/or in Need of International Protection, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 19 August 2014.
Advisory Opinion OC-25/18, The Institution of Asylum, and its Recognition as a Human Right under the Inter-American System of Protection, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 30 May 2018.
African Commission of Human and People’s Rights v. The Republic of Kenya (2013), App no 006/2012 ACtHPR.
APDH v. Republic of Cote d’Ivoire (2016), 2 AfCLR 141.
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948), 1 KB 223 (CA).
Babar Ahmad and Others v. The United Kingdom, Applications nos. 24027/07, 11949/08, 36742/08, 66911/09 and 67354/09, Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights, 10 10 2012.
Bachan Singh v. Union of India (1980), 2 SCC 684.
Belgian Linguistics Case (1968), 1 EHRR 252.
Bennett & Coleman v. Union of India (1973), 2 SCC 788.
Chahal v. the United Kingdom (1996), ApfSp No 22414/93 ECtHR.
Chintaman Rao v. State of M.P (1915), 1 AIR SC 118.
Cossey v. United Kingdom (1990), App No 10843/84 ECtHR.
Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (1984), UKHL 9.
Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service, (1985) 3 WLR 11741.
Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (1985), AC 374 (HL) 410.
Fromancais v. Forma (1983), Case C-66/82 ECR 395.
Gomes Lund et al. (“Guerrilha do Araguaia”) v. Brazil, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Series C No. 219, Judgment of 24 24 2010.
Handyside v United Kingdom, App No 5493/72 [1976] ECHR 5.
Haitian Interdiction – Haitian Boat People, U.S. Supreme Court, Judgment of 21 21 1993.
Hans Muller of Nuremberg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail Calcutta (1955), AIR SC 367.
Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy, Application No. 27765/09, Judgment of 23 February 2012.
Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v. Republic of Rwanda (2017), Application 003/2014 ACtHPR.
Ireland v. UK (1979-1980), EHRR 25.
Kennedy v. Charity Commission (Secretary of State for Justice intervening) [2015] UKSC 20.
Keyu v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2015] UKSC 69.
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295.
Kitua Cha Sheria and others v. The Attorney General (2017), Civil Appeal 108 of 2014 eKLR.
Lohe Issa Konate v. Burkino Faso (2014), App No. 004/2013 ACtHPR.
Louis De Raedt v. Union of India (1991), 3 SCC 554.
Mamatkulov and Askar v. Turkey (2005), 41 EHRR 25.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), 1 SCC 248.
Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India (2021), AIR SC 5396.
Modern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016), 7 SCC 353.
Mohammad Salimullah v. Union of India (2021), AIR SC (Civil) 1753.
N.D. and N.T. v. Spain, Applications Nos. 8675/15 and 8697/15, Judgment of 13 February 2020.
Nada v. Switzerland (2012), App No 10593/08 [GC].
Nandita Haksar v. State of Manipur, W.P.(Crl.) No. 6 of 2021.
O K Ghosh v. E X Joseph (1963), AIR SC 812.
Pacheco Tineo Family v. Plurinational State of Bolivia, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Series C No. 272, Judgment of 25 25 2013.
Pham v. Home Secretary [2015] 1 WLR 1591.
Puttaswamy (II) v. Union of India (2019), 1 SCC 1.
Quila and Another (2011), UKSC 45.
R v. Ministry of Defence (1996), QB 517.
R v Oakes (1986), 1 SCR 103.
R. v. Secretary of State for Defence; Ex parte Smith et al. (1996), 4 All E.R. 427.
R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex p Brind (1991), 1 AC 696 (HL).
R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Daly (2001), UKHL 26.
R (Wellington) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (2008), UKHL 72.
Randu Nzai Ruwa and Others v. Minister of Internal Security and Another (2012), Miscellaneous Application 468 of 2010 eKLR.
Saadi v. Italy (2008), App No 37201/06 ECtHR.
Smith and Gardy v. United Kingdom (1999), 29 EHRR 493.
Socialist Party and Others v. Turkey (1998), App 20/1997/804/1007, ECtHR.
Soering v. The United Kingdom (1989), App No. 14038/88 ECtHR.
SPUC v Grogan (1991), C-159/90.
State of Arunachal Pradesh v. National Human Rights Commission 1996 SCC (1) 742.
Subramaniam Swamy v Union of India (2016), AIR SC 2728.
Superintendent Central Prison v. Ram Manohar Lohia (1960), 2 SCR 821.
Tanganyika Law Society and Legal and Human Rights Centre v. Tanzania and Reverend Christopher R. Mitilika v. United Republic of Tanzania (2013), App no. 009/2011 and 011/2011 ACtHPR.
The Matter of Anudo Ochieng Anudo v United Republic of Tanzania (2018), App no. 012/2015 ACtHPR.
Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Series C No. 207, Judgment of 20 November 2009.
VG Row v. State of Madras (1952), AIR SC 196.
Vivalrajah and Others v. The United Kingdom (1991), Ser A no 215 ECtHR.
Newspapers
DAS, K. N. and MIGLANI, S. (2017). ‘India says to deport all Rohingya regardless of the UN registration’, Reuters.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Sabreen Ahmed
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
