English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

India’s courts have proven cautious or ineffectual in protecting refugees and asylum seekers in India against refoulement. This article examines the courts’ approaches to the prospective removal of persons at risk of harm if removed from India and identifies a contradiction between the breadth of India’s constitutional guarantee of “life and liberty” and its courts’ narrow and inconsistent approach to questions of refoulement. This article argues that the right to non-refoulement has solely been recognized in India as a “procedural” right (merely requiring that persons at risk of persecution on return to their countries of origin be removed through “proper” procedures), and that this approach is unclear, inconsistent and unsatisfactory.

DEPRIVED OF LIFE:Rohingya asylum seekers and the limits of constitutional protections in India