Proportionality Analysis and Non-refoulement Jurisprudence in India: A Comparative Approach

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.