2021 STATELESSNESS AND THE CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT, 2019 173 Therefore, the state’s approach to refugees and stateless persons is subject to a reorientation of political will, the identity of the individual in question, and the prevailing socio-political climate.116 To illustrate, the Indian State metes differential treatment over time depending on the incumbent government – although it welcomed Sri Lankan Tamil refugees in the 1980s, the current government has not accorded similar treatment for the Rohingyas.117 Various reports by human rights organisations and media forums have also documented that the Indian State has consistently pressured foreigners to prove their identity, confined suspected foreigners in camps, and ordered deportations under the 1946 Act.118 To compound the problems under the 1946 Act, courts have been overly deferential in creating safeguards against the 1946 Act. For instance, in the cases of Hans Muller,119 and Louis de Raedt,120 the SC declared that the 1946 Act confers unfettered discretion to the government to expel foreigners. The positions taken in Hans Muller and Louis de Raedt have consistently been 116 117 118 119 120 1946 Act, s 2, s 7A, s 8, s 11, s 14; Chakrabarty (n 28); Nair (n 28). Chowdhory (n 5) ; Bhattacharjee (n 113); Anasuya Syam, ‘Patchwork of Archaic Regulations and Policies in India: A Breeding Ground for Discriminatory Practice Against Refugees’ [2019] 51 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 14; to illustrate, India recently deported seven Rohingya persons from Manipur to Myanmar as in Ishita Kumar and Nayantara Rajan, ‘By Deporting 7 Rohingya Men, Supreme Court and Government of India failed to uphold International Humanitarian Obligations’ (The Leaflet, 6 October 2018) <https://www.theleaflet.in/deporting-rohingya-supreme-court-government-india-failed-international-humanitarian-obligations/#> accessed 28 July 2021. Passport (Entry into India) Act 1920, s 5; Chimni (n 5); Bhattacharjee (n 113); Amnesty International India, Between Fear and Hatred: Surviving Migration Detention in Assam (2018); Sabyasachi Chaudhary, ‘Dispossession, Un-freedom, Precarity: Negotiating Citizenship Laws in Postcolonial South Asia’ [2021] 120 South Atlantic Quarterly 209; Talha Abdul Rahman, ‘Identifying the ‘Outsider’ An Assessment of Foreigner Tribunals in the Indian State of Assam’ [2020] 2 Statelessness and Citizenship Review 112; Ahmed Shaheed, Institutional Discrimination and Statelessness in India (2020) <https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/ Religion/Submissions/CSOs/11.barak-huma-rights-protection-committee.pdf> accessed 28 July 2021; Mohsin Alam Bhat, ‘Citizenship’s Rule of exception’ (The Leaflet, 26 January 2021) <https://www.theleaflet.in/citizenships-rule-of-exception/#> accessed 28 July 2021; Kai Schultz, ‘As India Clamps Down on Migration, Millions May Lose Citizenship’ (The New York Times, 30 July 2018) <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/30/world/asia/india-citizenship-assam-muslim.html> accessed 28 July 2021; Tawqeer Hussain, ‘‘How is it Human?’: India’s Largest Detention Centre Almost Ready’ (Al Jazeera, 2 January 2020) <https:// www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/1/2/how-is-it-human-indias-largest-detention-centre-almostready> accessed 28 July 2021; Faizan Mustafa, ‘Kangaroo Tribunals: Foreigners’ Tribunals Almost Another Arm of BJP Government in Assam’ The Indian Express (8 October 2019) <https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/supreme-court-foreigners-tribunals-assam-nrc-6058158/> accessed 28 July 2021; Darshana Mitra, ‘From Citizen to Criminal: Citizenship Determination in India and the Limits of Due Process’ (The Leaflet, 27 January 2021) <https://www.theleaflet.in/from-citizen-to-criminal-citizenship-determination-in-india-and-the-limits-of-due-process/#> accessed 28 July 2021. Hans Muller of Nurenburg v Supt., Presidency Jail AIR 1955 SC 367. Louis De Raedt v Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 554 : AIR 1991 SC 1886.