Content

1. Refugees, infiltrators
2. The road to gender equity in courts

Refugees, infiltrators

Why in News ?

• Union Home Minister Amit Shah (Oct 2025) reiterated the need to distinguish between refugees and infiltrators, highlighting governance, security, and humanitarian dimensions.
• This comes amid the implementation of the new Immigration and Foreigners Act (April 2025) — which replaced three colonial-era laws but still lacks a comprehensive refugee policy.
• The recent notification (Sept 2025) exempted undocumented Sri Lankan Tamil refugees (entered before Jan 9, 2015) from penal provisions under the new Act — raising debates on religion-based and selective refugee treatment.

Relevance:

• GS Paper 2: Governance, international relations, rights of vulnerable sections, constitutional protection for refugees.
• GS Paper 3: Internal security implications of illegal migration.
• GS Paper 1: Human geography and population migration issues.

Practice Questions:

• Discuss the need for a comprehensive national refugee policy in India in light of the new Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025. (250 words)

Background: India’s Refugee Framework — The Legal Vacuum

1. Absence of a National Refugee Law

• India is not a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol.
• Hence, there is no statutory definition of a refugee or uniform asylum process.
• Refugees are legally treated as foreigners under general laws.

2. Pre-2025 Legal Regime

• Foreigners Act, 1946: Empowered government to detain or deport any foreign national.
• Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939: Required registration of foreigners staying beyond prescribed periods.
• Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920: Controlled entry without valid documents.
• Immigration (Carriers’ Liability) Act, 2000: Penalized transporters bringing undocumented migrants.

3. Post-2025 Consolidation

• The Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 consolidated all four laws, aiming for administrative streamlining.
• However, it does not define “refugee” or distinguish humanitarian entry from illegal infiltration.

Constitutional and International Dimensions

A. Constitutional Context

• Article 21: Protects “Right to Life and Personal Liberty” — extended by SC to all persons, including foreigners (National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, 1996).
• Article 14: Equality before law applies to all persons.
• Directive Principles (Art. 38, 39): Mandate humane treatment and social justice for all, forming moral basis for refugee protection.

B. International Law

• India’s stance: Though not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention, India follows customary international law, including non-refoulement (no forced return of refugees to danger zones).
• UNHCR in India: Operates in coordination with MEA; manages asylum determination for non-neighboring country refugees (e.g., Afghans, Africans).

Refugee Demographics in India (as of mid-2025)

Total: ~2.1 lakh refugees/persons of concern (UNHCR, June 2023).

Recent Policy Developments (2024–25)

Immigration & Foreigners Act (April 2025):

• Unified immigration and foreigner management.
  • Subsumed old laws, but still no “refugee” recognition.

Exemption Notification (Sept 2025):

• Tamil refugees (before Jan 2015) exempted from penal provisions.
  • Significance: acknowledges humanitarian ground but exposes selective treatment.

Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019:

• Provided citizenship pathway for non-Muslim minorities from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh.
  • Excluded Rohingya Muslims and Sri Lankan Tamils, leading to allegations of religious bias.

UNHCR-India Cooperation (2025):

• Strengthened digital refugee registration system.
  • Yet, UNHCR access remains restricted in border regions (e.g., North East, J&K).

Issues and Concerns

1. Absence of a Uniform Refugee Policy

• Ad hoc treatment based on bilateral ties, religion, or ethnicity.
• Creates legal uncertainty and policy inconsistency.

2. Conflation of Refugees with Illegal Migrants

• Citizenship Act defines undocumented entrants as “illegal migrants”.
• Leads to harassment, detention, or deportation of genuine asylum seekers.

3. Security vs Humanitarian Balance

• Refugee inflow from Myanmar, Afghanistan, or Rohingya regions poses security monitoring challenges.
• However, blanket suspicion undermines humanitarian commitments.

4. Discrimination in Application

• Selective recognition (e.g., Tibetans get rehabilitation; Tamils do not).
• Religion-based exclusions post-CAA undermine secular principles (Articles 14 & 25).

5. Administrative Gaps

• No centralized refugee registry or biometric database.
• State-level discretion causes inconsistent implementation.

Need for a Comprehensive Refugee Policy Document

Key Principles Proposed

1. Legal Definition of Refugee: Distinguish from economic migrant and illegal infiltrator.
2. Due Process: Transparent asylum application, appeal, and review mechanisms.
3. Rights Framework: Access to health, education, work permits under administrative supervision.
4. Non-Discrimination Clause: Uphold Articles 14 & 21 across religion, ethnicity, nationality.
5. National Refugee Commission: Coordinate with UNHCR, States, and security agencies.
6. Digital Refugee Registry: For documentation, welfare targeting, and security vetting.

Comparative Perspective

India remains one of the few major democracies without a codified refugee protection regime.

Way Forward

• Draft a Refugee and Asylum Bill: (similar to 2015 draft by MP Shashi Tharoor) for legal uniformity.
• Integrate Security Screening + Humanitarian Relief: Joint oversight by MHA & MEA.
• Regional Cooperation: Use BIMSTEC and SAARC to manage cross-border displacement.
• Ratify 1951 Convention selectively or adopt a “South Asian Refugee Compact.”
• Public Awareness & Local Integration: Reduce xenophobia, foster community acceptance.

Conclusion

• India’s moral leadership and democratic values demand a clear, humane, and non-discriminatory refugee policy.
• While security concerns are real, policy arbitrariness undermines constitutional ideals of equality and compassion.
• A codified refugee framework—rooted in Articles 14 and 21 and aligned with international norms—can ensure humane protection, national security, and global credibility in an era of rising displacement.

The road to gender equity in courts

 Why in News

• India Justice Report 2025 revealed persistent gender imbalance in the higher judiciary.
• Women constitute only 14% of judges in High Courts and 3.1% in the Supreme Court (only 1 woman out of 34 judges).
• Only one woman Chief Justice heads a High Court out of 25.
• The issue has regained national focus as the only woman judge of the Supreme Court is poised to become India’s first woman CJI, potentially leaving zero female representation afterward.
• Parallelly, the debate on creating an All-India Judicial Service (AIJS) has resurfaced, with President Droupadi Murmu (Nov 2023) advocating a merit-based, transparent, national-level recruitment system for judges.

Relevance:

• GS Paper 2: Polity, Governance, Judiciary reforms, Gender equality.
• GS Paper 1: Role of women and social empowerment.
• GS Paper 4: Ethics — inclusion, fairness, transparency in institutions.

Practice Questions:

• “An inclusive judiciary is essential for an inclusive democracy.” Examine the causes and consequences of women’s under-representation in India’s higher judiciary. (250 words)

Background: Gender Gap in Indian Judiciary

Current Composition (2025)

•  
• High representation in lower judiciary due to competitive exams with gender-neutral access.
• Underrepresentation in higher judiciary linked to opaque Collegium system, limited career mobility, and gendered professional networks.

Structural Reasons for Underrepresentation

Collegium System Bias

• Higher judiciary appointments are made via Collegium (CJI + 4 senior-most SC judges) — an insular, network-driven process.
• Lack of transparency, subjectivity, and elite legal circles allegations marginalize women, regional candidates, and first-generation lawyers.

Lack of Institutional Pipeline

• Few women reach senior advocate or High Court judge positions.
• Career breaks due to family responsibilities further limit eligibility.

Infrastructure Deficiencies

• 20% of district courts (as of 2023, CRP–SC Report) lack separate toilets for women, affecting participation and retention.
• Limited childcare and safety facilities in court premises.

Absence of Affirmative Policies

• No gender quota, reservation, or targeted mentorship for women in higher judiciary.
• State diversity and social representation also remain low (SC, ST, OBC underrepresented).

Constitutional & Institutional Framework

• Article 14 & 15(3): Equality and State empowerment to make special provisions for women.
• Article 39(a): Equal opportunity in justice delivery.
• Article 312: Empowers Parliament to create All-India Services, including All-India Judicial Service (AIJS).
• Directive Principles (Art. 38, 39A): Obligation to ensure justice and equality of opportunity.

All-India Judicial Service (AIJS): Concept & Debates

A. Rationale

• To establish a uniform, transparent, competitive national recruitment for judges (District & Higher Judiciary).
• To replace Collegium arbitrariness with UPSC-like meritocracy.
• To enhance social, gender, and regional diversity.

B. Supporters’ Arguments

• President Droupadi Murmu (2023): Advocated AIJS to “offer opportunities to less-represented social groups”.
• Justice A.M. Khanwilkar (retired): Called AIJS a “constitutional necessity”.
• UPSC’s success proves competitive exams can ensure diversity and transparency:
  • 2024 UPSC Data:
    • 1,009 total selections → 318 OBC, 160 SC, 87 ST, 109 EWS.
    • 11 of top 25 were women.
    • IPS intake (2024): 54 women (28%).

C. Opponents’ Concerns

• Fear of executive interference undermining judicial independence.
• States and High Courts fear loss of control over appointments.
• Critics argue that judicial temperament requires more than exam-based merit.

D. Proposed Safeguards

• UPSC conducts exam, but eligibility, syllabus, and standards set by SC/HCs.
• Training under SC/HC control post-selection.
• Service control vested in Supreme Court, not executive.

Comparative Context: Global Benchmarks

Reform Imperatives

1. Institutionalize AIJS under Article 312 with Parliamentary sanction.
2. Ensure gender-responsive infrastructure — restrooms, childcare, and safety mechanisms in courts.
3. Introduce reservation or diversity benchmarks in higher judiciary.
4. Mentorship pipeline: Senior judges/lawyers to mentor women lawyers for elevation.
5. Transparency in Collegium: Publish shortlists, diversity data, and selection rationale.
6. Performance-linked promotions: From lower to higher judiciary through objective evaluation.

Broader Significance

• Justice accessibility: Diverse benches enhance legitimacy and sensitivity in gender, caste, and minority issues.
• Democratic representation: Judiciary reflects social realities.
• Public trust: Transparency and inclusiveness reduce elite capture perception.
• Gender justice: Aligns with India’s constitutional and SDG 5 commitments (Gender Equality).

Conclusion

• India’s judiciary stands at a moral and structural crossroads — between elitist continuity and democratic reform.
• Without structural correction, the higher judiciary risks representational bankruptcy.
• A transparent, merit-based All-India Judicial Service, modeled on UPSC standards and insulated from executive pressure, could democratize access, normalize women’s leadership in law, and strengthen the constitutional promise of equal justice for all.