The Role Of The Judiciary In Upholding Migrants’ Rights: A Comparative Study Of India And Selected Western Jurisdictions
- IJLLR Journal
- Jul 9
- 1 min read
Soumeli Sutradhar, Rajiv Gandhi University
ABSTRACT
Across the globe, courts have become critical sites where the rights of migrants are vindicated and, at times, curtailed. This article compares the approaches of the Supreme Court of India with those of key Western jurisdictions—the United Kingdom, the European human-rights system, the United States and Canada—to identify convergences, divergences and emerging trends in judicial protection of migrants. It argues that, although constitutional architecture and statutory frameworks differ markedly, courts share three core functions: (1) guarding minimum standards of dignity, (2) mediating between executive power and international obligations, and (3) progressively clarifying the scope of non-citizens’ rights. The paper concludes that robust protection is more likely when courts combine purposive constitutional interpretation with close scrutiny of executive immigration policy, but that judicial victories remain vulnerable to legislative override and political backlash. Policy recommendations are offered to strengthen migrants’ access to justice and to foster cross- jurisdictional learning among judiciaries.
Keywords: Judicial review; migrant workers; asylum seekers; Supreme Court of India; UK Supreme Court; ECtHR; CJEU; U.S. Supreme Court; Supreme Court of Canada.
