10. India is not party to the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, 13 the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, 14 or the 1951 Convention relating to the status of Refugees and/or its 1967 Protocol (together ‘Refugee Convention’). 15 11. Analysis of India’s international obligations is relevant to the current litigation before the Indian Supreme Court because article 51 (c) of the Constitution of India requires that the State ‘foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organized peoples with one another’. 16 Indian Courts have consistently interpreted this obligation in an expansive manner, and have chosen to incorporate India’s international treaty obligations and international customary law norms, even in the absence of appropriate domestic legislation to give effect to these norms. 17 12. The CAA has enlivened concern from key actors within the United Nations human rights system, including the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights 18 and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues. 19 13 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, opened for signature 28 September 1954, 360 UNTS 117 (entered into force 6 June 1960) (‘Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons’). 14 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, opened for signature 30 August 1961, 989 UNTS 175 (entered into force 13 December 1975) (‘Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness’). 15 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, opened for signature 28 July 1951, 189 UNTS 137 (entered into force 22 April 1954); Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, opened for signature 31 January 1967, 606 UNTS 267 (entered into force 4 October 1967) (together ‘Refugee Convention’). 16 Constitution of India 1950 (India) art 51(c). 17 Vishaka v State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241; Vellore Citizen’s Welfare Forum v Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647. Of pertinence here is the Gujarat High Court’s decision in Ktaer Abbas Habib Al Qutaifi v Union of India (1999) CriLJ 919, where the court read the principle of non-refoulment (drawn from the Refugee Convention, to which India is not a signatory) into Article 21 of the Indian Constitution (Right to Life). In doing so, the Court went as far as to note that this principle “is binding on all states, independently of specific assent”. 18 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘Application for Intervention’, Submission in Deb Mukharji, IFS (Retd.) & Ors v Union of India & Ors, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1474 of 2019. 19 Noting that the proposed amendment to the Citizenship Act of 1955 would ‘facilitate eligibility for citizenship for most religious groups, but exclude the Muslim minority’, the Special Rapporteur noted that ‘[f]ears have been expressed that that situation would lead to millions of Muslims in India being unable to formalize their citizen status, thus leaving them stateless: Report of the Special Rapporteur on minority issues Statelessness: a minority issue, UN Doc A/73/205 (20 July 2018) [35], available at: https://undocs.org/A/73/205. 4