UPSC Current Affairs Quiz, 11 August 2026

Explanation

India has not acceded to the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees or its 1967 Protocol. Consequently, India has no binding treaty obligation under international refugee law — including the cardinal principle of non-refoulement (not returning a refugee to a place where they face serious threats). In practice, Rohingyas in India are governed not by a dedicated refugee statute but by the Foreigners Act, 1946, which treats undocumented entrants as illegal immigrants subject to detention and deportation. India has no domestic refugee law; the UNHCR issues Refugee Status Determination cards, but Indian courts have held that this does not override the government's power under the Foreigners Act to deport illegal migrants. Statement 1 is therefore correct. Statement 2 is false: there is no dedicated domestic refugee protection law in India; Parliament has enacted no such legislation, and Rohingyas are legally classified as illegal immigrants, not as a protected refugee category.

Explanation

Statement 1 is incorrect. The Supreme Court — notably in Madras Bar Association cases — has consistently held that legislative provisions that give the executive control over service conditions (including short tenures, low salaries, and conditions of removal) of tribunal members are constitutionally impermissible, regardless of whether the tribunals substitute High Courts. The Court struck down several provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 precisely on these grounds: the infirmities in tenure, salary, and appointment security were held to compromise judicial independence and violate the separation of powers doctrine. Parliament cannot rescue such provisions merely by arguing the substitution test. Statement 2 is correct. The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 on the ground that they were contrary to the principles of separation of powers and judicial independence — specifically because the executive retained disproportionate control over appointment, tenure, and conditions of service of tribunal members, contrary to standards laid down in earlier judgments. Statement 3 is correct. The Supreme Court had directed the establishment of an independent National Tribunals Commission with professional expertise, transparent selection procedures, and an oversight mechanism for appointments — precisely to insulate tribunal governance from executive dominance. The Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2026, which is intended to repeal the 2021 Act, implements this direction.