BANGLADESH The High Court Division’s 2017 judgment in RMMRU v. the Government of Bangladesh explicitly recognized Bangladesh’s obligation under the norm of nonrefoulement, which was acknowledged as having become a part of customary international law. The decision declared unconstitutional the arbitrary detention of Rohingya prisoners after the completion of their prison terms and directed they be accommodated in the refugee camps administered by the Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief in collaboration with the UNHCR. By doing so, the court effectively read a prohibition on refoulement into the government’s application of the Foreigners Act of 1946.73 This limitation on the state’s ability to return foreign nationals applies not only to Rohingya refugees, but to individuals of any nationality who would face torture or other inhumane treatment, or even persecution of other kinds, if returned to their country of origin. INDIA Various judgments issued by India’s Supreme Court have affirmed the binding nature of the norm of non-refoulement on the Indian government. This includes the landmark case of Malavika Karlekar v. Union of India,74 in which the Supreme Court recognized the principle of non-refoulement as customary international law. Additionally, other cases including Bogyi vs. Union of India, Ktaer Abbas Habib al Qutaifi vs. Union of India, and Dongh Lian Kham vs. Union of India,75 set out the right of asylum seekers of any nationality to have their protection claims evaluated before a decision regarding their deportation is finalized. In India, positive caselaw precedent has recently been overturned by more recent rulings, such as in Saimullah v. Union of India,76 pointing to the political frailty of judicial interpretation of customary international law when compared to the more durable protections offered by ratification of international treaties or even domestic legislative frameworks. Despite earlier, clear guidance from the Supreme Court, Rohingya seeking asylum have been characterized by the government as potentially dangerous Muslim extremists and, in a handful of cases, Rohingya protection seekers were refouled to Myanmar.77 Such narratives risk engendering hate crimes and violence, and underscore the importance of counternarrative campaigns to change public opinion and ensure that Rohingya refugees and other victims of discrimination are protected from racism, xenophobia, and refoulement. 20 UND OING PRECARIT Y: ELE VATING P OSITIVE PR ACTICES FOR REFU GEE PROTECTION IN SO U TH AND SO U THE AST ASIA