174 SOCIO-LEGAL REVIEW VOL. 17 reiterated by courts, firmly entrenching the unfettered discretion of the state in dealing with foreigners as the law of the land.121 Sri Lankan Tamil refugees, too, have fallen prey to the draconian provisions of the 1946 Act. The Tamil Nadu government has passed notifications under the 1946 Act directing that Sri Lankan Tamil refugees cannot move outside refugee camps, and must obtain permission from the Collector to do so.122 In persistent attempts to break free from this restriction, Sri Lankan Tamil refugees have filed numerous petitions challenging such notifications.123 However, courts have reiterated Hans Muller and Louis de Raedt in saying that the 1946 Act confers unfettered discretion on the government for dealing with foreigners.124 Unfortunately, international law can provide little respite to refugees and stateless persons in India.125 Although India is a party to the covenants on civil and political rights126 and economic, social and cultural rights,127 they are enforceable in India to a limited extent.128 India has not made a meaningful 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 Reza Abdullatif Saboonchi v State of Maharashtra, 2012 SCC OnLine Bom 1363 : 2013 (4) Bom CR (Cri) 427; Republic of Italy v Union of India, (2013) 4 SCC 721; Johnny Paul Pierce v Union of India 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 2958; Rehman Shagoo v State of J&K, 1958 SCC OnLine J&K 1 : AIR 1958 J&K 29; Giani Bakshish Singh v Govt of India, (1973) 2 SCC 688 : AIR 1973 SC 2667; G Moorthy v State of Karnataka 1992 SCC OnLine Kar 362 : (1993) 1 Kant LJ 376; Fred Howard Haering v State of HP 1994 SCC OnLine HP 26 : AIR 1996 HP 27; Gilles Pfeiffer v Union of India, 1996 SCC OnLine Mad 190 : AIR 1996 Mad 322; Tasleem Murad v Govt of AP 2002 SCC OnLine AP 738 : (2002) 5 ALD 307; Cherchi Domenico Ferdinando v Union of India 2004 SCC OnLine Del 93 : AIR 2004 Del 147; Kalavathy v Government of Tamil Nadu, 1995-2-LW(Crl) 690; Kanu Sanyal v Distt Magistrate, Darjeeling (1974) 4 SCC 141 : AIR 1974 SC 510; P. Loganathan v Inspector of Police, Writ Petition No. 14962 of 1991 (9 December 1991); Maheswaran v State of Tamil Nadu, H.C.P. 1208 of 2005 (21 March 2006); Premavathy v State of TN 2003 SCC OnLine Mad 764 : 2004 CriLJ 1475; Rasenthiram v State of Tamil Nadu, H.C.P. No. 278 of 2007 (18 August 2007); Sasikala v State of TN 2006 SCC OnLine Mad 642; Selvakulendran v State of TN HCP No. 1249 of 2005 decided on 15 March 2006. 1946 Act, s 3(g); Chimni (n 5); Anupama Roy, Mapping citizenship in India (OUP 2010). Kalavathy (n 121); Kanu Sanyal (n 121); P. Loganathan (n 121); Maheswaran (n 121); Premavathy (n 121); Rasenthiram (n 121); Sasikala (n 121); Selvakulendran (n 121). ibid. VG Hegde, ‘Indian Courts and International Law’ [2010] 23 Leiden Journal of International Law 53; Bimal Patel, India and International Law (Brill 2005); Shuvro Sarker, ‘Reducing Statelessness: A New Call for India’ (2014) Policies and Practices Calcutta Research Group 60 <https://ssrn.com/abstract=2961121> accessed 28 July 2021; Unnati Ghia, ‘Suddenly Stateless: International Law Implications of India’s New Citizenship Law’ (Opinio Juris, 5 February 2020) <http://opiniojuris.org/2020/02/05/suddenly-stateless-international-law-implications-of-indias-new-citizenship-law/> accessed 28 July 2021. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976) (“ICCPR”). International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 3 January 1976). Constitution of India 1950, art 51; India has also tried to cite reservations to certain provisions of these covenants, for instance, for ICCPR, art 13, India reserves the right to apply