The Supreme Court recently expressed concerns about how the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has been issuing refugee cards to foreign immigrants in India [Yousif Haroun Yagoub Mohamed vs. Union of India & Ors].
A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a plea filed by a Sudanese national (petitioner) seeking protection from coercive action amid claims of African nationals in Delhi being randomly detained by authorities.
When the Court was informed that the man held a UNHCR refugee card, it observed that such cards are being handed out easily.
“They have opened a showroom here, they (UNHCR) are issuing certificates to everyone. We don't want to comment on them,” Justice Kant remarked during the October 6 hearing.
Senior Advocate S Muralidhar, appearing for the petitioner, explained that the man had been living in India since 2013 with his wife and two children - one of them just forty days old. He said the petitioner, his wife and children had all been recognised by the UNHCR as refugees.
As the Court expressed reservations about the issue of refugee cards, Muralidhar explained that the UNHCR did not hand out cards indiscriminately and only did so after rigorous verification.
He said the process involved detailed checks and assessments that often took years, and that even the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Foreigners Regional Registration Office treated UNHCR-recognised persons differently.
“It takes quite some time. It’s not that they immediately grant these cards. They do a lot of checking, counter-checking and they analyse it. It takes them some years. The MHA and FRRO have always treated these people who have been given these cards differently from others,” he said.
He added that in the last few months, there has been a targeted drive against African nationals in Delhi, leading to arbitrary detentions, which has created fear among asylum seekers awaiting relocation.
“It’s only in the interim. In the last few months, suddenly, a drive starts against all Africans in Delhi. They are randomly picking up. This is the real apprehension and fear. We are awaiting for an asylum status for Australia and suddenly we are told that…” Muralidhar submitted.
Justice Bagchi, however, said that since India has not ratified the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, there is no legal framework that could confer enforceable rights on the petitioner.
“India does not ratify the international convention of refugees. So legal rights, and municipal law is not there,” the Bench noted.
The Court suggested that the petitioner could pursue his asylum claim through the appropriate channels rather than seek interim protection from the Court.
“Your client has to go to Australia. So let them be advised to process his VISA… Why don’t you move to Australia? That is better. If you stay there and then take a permanent citizenship…,” Justice Bagchi said.
Muralidhar urged the Court to at least ensure no coercive action is taken against the petitioner till the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) decides his representation. However, the Bench declined to pass such an order, observing that it could not keep entertaining similar petitions every day.
“We don’t know how many matters we’ll get in a day then. We have to be very very careful,” Justice Kant said.
The Court then proceeded to dispose of the petition after recording Muralidhar’s submission that the petitioner’s case was already before the NHRC.
[Read Order]