Rohingya case points to legal vacuum on refugees

True character is revealed not in comfort, but in crisis. And India has passed that test before. Our tradition of sheltering the persecuted is neither recent nor accidental. In 1959, when the Dalai Lama and thousands of Tibetans fled Chinese persecution, India didn’t just open its borders, we helped build a community in exile that thrives to this day. That moment—and others such as the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War, and the civil conflicts in Sri Lanka and Afghanistan —cemented India’s global image as a democracy with a moral compass.

- Insiyah Vahanvaty Ashish Bharadwaj

The current Rohingya crisis must be seen in the light of this legacy. With the Supreme Court now hearing critical petitions, this moment may well determine whether India upholds or departs from that legacy. The Rohingyas are a persecuted Muslim minority from Myanmar's Rakhine State, many of whom fled to neighbouring countries following violence and military crackdowns, especially in 2017. The United Nations has described their plight as a “textbook example of ethnic cleansing”. As per government estimates, there are currently 40,000 Rohingya Muslims living in various parts of India. They live in overcrowded camps with little access to education, health care, or sanitation. And their presence here has sparked complex legal and constitutional debates.

India is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol, nor does it have a dedicated domestic refugee law. This legal vacuum lies at the heart of the debate. Although many Rohingya persons hold UNHCR-issued identity cards, they face significant legal challenges due to this absence of a formal protection framework. As a result, many are treated as illegal immigrants, subject to detention and deportation.