A Myanmar refugee, recognised by UNHCR, has petitioned the Delhi High Court against Delhi University's admission policy. The plea challenges the mandatory passport requirement for foreign students, calling it discriminatory and impossible for refugees to meet.
A recognised Myanmar refugee has moved the Delhi High Court challenging the University of Delhi's admission policy that mandates foreign students to possess a non-Indian passport, contending that the requirement effectively excludes refugees who, by the very nature of their status, cannot obtain travel documents from the countries they fled.
Petition Seeks Exemption for Refugees
The petition seeks the Court's intervention to strike down or read down the eligibility condition in the University of Delhi's Foreign Students' Registry (FSR) Admission Bulletin insofar as it requires a non-Indian passport without providing any exemption or alternative documentation mechanism for refugees recognised by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). It also seeks a direction to the University to consider the petitioner's candidature for an undergraduate programme under the Foreign Students' Category without insisting on production of a passport.
The petitioner, Henry Htoo Aung Lin, states that he and his family fled Myanmar due to political instability, violence and fear of persecution and have been living in India under UNHCR protection since 2022. Having completed his schooling in India, he applied for admission to Delhi University for the 2026-27 academic session through the Foreign Students' Registry on May 28, 2026. However, the University informed him that his application was incomplete because he had not submitted a passport. Despite representations requesting that his UNHCR documents be accepted in lieu of a passport, no relief was granted, prompting him to approach the High Court.
Legal Arguments Against the Policy
The plea, filed through Advocate Ashok Aggarwal and Advocate Kumar Utkarsh, argues that the University's insistence on a passport imposes an impossible condition on recognised refugees, who cannot safely approach the authorities of the very country from which they have sought refuge. It contends that the impugned policy violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by treating refugees and ordinary foreign nationals alike despite their fundamentally different circumstances.
Contradictory and Discriminatory Policy
According to the petition, the University's own Foreign Students' Registry admission bulletin includes a "Refugee Certificate from UNHCR" among the prescribed documents. However, the simultaneous insistence on a national passport renders that provision meaningless, as recognised refugees are ordinarily unable to obtain passports from their countries of origin. The plea describes this as a self-contradictory and arbitrary requirement.
The petitioner further points out that the FSR framework permits Tibetan nationals, who also may not possess passports, to rely on an alternative document such as a Registration Certificate. Denying a similar accommodation to UNHCR-recognised refugees from Myanmar, the petition argues, amounts to hostile discrimination and violates the constitutional guarantee of equality.
It is also argued that the passport requirement bears no nexus to academic eligibility. The petitioner submits that his identity and educational credentials are already established through his UNHCR documentation and certificates issued by recognised Indian education boards. He completed Class X from the Mizoram Board of School Education and Class XII in the Science stream from the Meghalaya Board of School Education before applying for admission to Delhi University.
Invoking Right to Dignity and Education
Invoking the legal maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia, the law does not compel a person to perform an impossible act. The petition contends that a refugee cannot be required to secure a passport from a state from which he has fled persecution. It further submits that access to higher education forms an integral component of the right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution and that denying admission solely because of an impossible documentary requirement is arbitrary and disproportionate.
The petition additionally clarifies that minor discrepancies in the spelling of the petitioner's name and date of birth in his UNHCR card are merely clerical errors arising during humanitarian documentation in conflict circumstances and cannot override the identity established through his Indian educational records. (ANI)
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianetnews Editorial staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)