Migrants, Refugees and the Stateless in India here nor there,’ says an inhabitant of the Gummidipoondi refugee camp near Chennai.36 India has also not ratified the 1954 and 1961 Conventions on Statelessness, meaning there is no legal recognition of statelessness persons—a prerequisite to access many rights. These deprive vulnerable groups such as Chakmas and Hajongs, and Kashmiri returnees, from the protection they need. There is also no official commitment to reduce statelessness. Despite the absence of dedicated refugee laws, there are many instances when courts in India have ruled in favour of asylumseekers on humanitarian grounds. The Supreme Court (SC) has, in several instances, applied Articles 14 and 2137 to migrants and refugees living in India as well as conferred basic human rights on them as defined by the UN.38 But the courts’ interventionist stance on refugees and asylum-seekers has been selective. For instance, the Supreme Court refused to intervene against the deportation of Rohingya refugees back to Myanmar in 2018, in violation of the principle of non-refoulement, as will be discussed later.39 There also exist many hurdles for these groups to claim citizenship in India. A 1986 amendment to the Citizenship Act, 1955 changed the basis of citizenship from jus soli (by virtue of birth) to jus sanguinis (by virtue of descent). Hence, citizenship has become conditional on the parents being Indian nationals as birth in India no longer suffices. This weakens safeguards for refugees and against statelessness. Another amendment, in 2003, while reducing the qualifying period for naturalisation from 14 years to nine, made citizenship ineligible 36 Piyumi Fonseka. ‘Desperate Lives inside Refugee Camps’, Daily Mirror, May 2, 2017, http://www.dailymirror.lk/article/Desperate-lives-inside-refugeecamps-128128.html. 37 Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution provide for equality before law, and the protection of life and liberty. 38 Some pieces of evidence of High Courts (HCs) upholding the basic human rights of refugees include: Gurunathan and Others vs GoI and Others and A.C. Mohd. Siddique vs GoI and Others; Nedumaran vs Government of Tamil Nadu, both on Sri Lankan refugees. Syed Ata Mohammadi vs Union of India, the Bombay HC, on Iranian refugees. See: Ghosh, Migrants, Refugees and the Stateless in South Asia, 243. 39 Krishnadas Rajagopal, ‘SC Throws out Plea to Restrain Govt from Deporting 7 Rohingya to Myanmar,’ The Hindu, October 4, 2018, https://www. thehindu.com/news/national/sc-allows-deportation-of-seven-rohingya-fromassam-to-myanmar/article25119615.ece. 53