India

21 November 2006 | Judicial Body: Australia: Refugee Review Tribunal | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Country of origin information (COI) - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) - Non-state agents of persecution - Persecution on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity - Social group persecution - State protection | Countries: Australia - India

18 May 2006 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Court of Session (Scotland) | Topic(s): Agents of persecution - Country of origin information (COI) - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) - Manifestly unfounded / Clearly abusive claims - State protection - Well-founded fear of persecution | Countries: India - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

23 September 2005 | Judicial Body: New Zealand: Refugee Status Appeals Authority | Topic(s): Appeal / Right to appeal - Country of origin information (COI) - Credibility assessment - Economic, social and cultural rights - Racial / Ethnic persecution - Social group discrimination - Social group persecution - State protection | Countries: India - New Zealand

We are a country governed by the Rule of Law. Our Constitution confers contains rights on every humanbeing and certain other rights on citizens. Every person is entitled to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. So also, no person can be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Thus the State is bound to protect the life and liberty of every human-being, be he a citizen or otherwise, and it cannot permit any body or group of persons, e.g., the AAPSU, to threaten the Chakmas to leave the State, failing which they would be forced to do so. No State Government worth the name can tolerate such threats by one group of persons to another group of persons; it is duty bound to protect the threatened group from such assaults and if it fails to do so, it will fail to perform its Constitutional as well as statutory obligations. Those giving such threats would be liable to be dealt with in accordance with law. The State Government must act impartially and carry out its legal obligations to safeguard the life, health and well-being of Chakmas residing in the State without being inhibited by local politics. Besides, by refusing to forward their applications, the Chakmas are denied rights, Constitutional and statutory, to be considered for being registered as citizens of India.

9 January 1996 | Judicial Body: India: Supreme Court | Topic(s): Chakma - Citizenship / Nationality law - Constitutional law - Right to life - Rights of non-citizens - State protection | Countries: Bangladesh - India