UNHCR-UN’s REFUGEE AGENCY(Indian Perspective) -under HUMAN

RIGHTS

Project Submitted for the partial Fulfilment for the degree of BA.LLB Course

Submitted To: Submitted By:

Rishi Sharma

Faculty of law BA LLB 6th Sem

Batch 2013-2018
 Acknowledgement

I deem it my proud privilege to express my indebtedness and sincere thanks to all those who
have in various ways, helped in the successful completion of the project and without their
invaluable help this project would not have been a reality.

I am extremely thankful to-------------------- faculty of law who was constant source of

knowledge and inspiration at all levels throughout my project.

To took a lots of interest in providing guidance about project report.

Finally, I express my most sincere gratitude to my Parents and my Family members for
supporting and encouraging me to this challenging project. I deeply acknowledge the support
and inspiration by my academic career.

'India’s refugee policy is an example for the rest of the

world to follow'1

1
Updated: January 4, 2013 01:39 IST
 Overview
India, Nepal and Sri Lanka offer asylum to a considerable number of refugees, although they are not signatories
of the 1951 Refugee Convention. UNHCR cooperates with the Governments of these countries, as well as with
NGOs and other stakeholders, to protect, assist and find durable solutions for refugees and other people of
concern.
The main populations of concern to UNHCR in the sub region include more than 200,000 refugees and asylum-
seekers of various origins living in India (of whom some 30,000 are registered with UNHCR); nearly 40,000
refugees and asylum-seekers in Nepal (of whom some 25,000 refugees from Bhutan live in two camps); and
nearly 2,400 refugees and asylum-seekers, 10,000 returnees, and 30,000 IDPs in Sri Lanka.
All three countries have seen a growing number of people seeking asylum, and this trend is likely to continue in
2015. In the absence of national asylum legislation, UNHCR conducts registration and refugee status
determination (RSD), and facilitates the resettlement of vulnerable groups. However, the processing of
resettlement submissions for refugees from Bhutan in Nepal is becoming labor-intensive, a situation that is
expected to increase as more complex cases are considered. Similarly, the substantial increase in asylum
applications in Sri Lanka in 2013-2014 has challenged UNHCR's capacity to conduct RSD and to process cases
for resettlement.
Sustainable livelihoods, reliable community-support networks, and access to specialized services for people
with special needs, are some of the main challenges faced by refugees in the three countries. In India, poverty is
a key challenge for the majority of refugees and asylum-seekers, who may face discrimination from local
communities with little understanding of refugee issues. The quality of public health and education in Nepal's
camps has been adversely affected by the departure of skilled refugee workers, who were resettled. Meanwhile,
in Sri Lanka, refugees, the internally displaced and refugee returnees struggle to meet their basic needs, and the
lack of a comprehensive national policy on land rights has had an adverse impact on the sustainability of return.
More recently, national security concerns have led to the shrinking of asylum space in Sri Lanka, with the
detention of refugees and asylum-seekers, as well as instances of refoulement.
While the three Governments have adopted various approaches to deal with the different refugee populations in
their countries, UNHCR fills the gaps in terms of protection, assistance and durable solutions. It focuses on the
most vulnerable, including women, children, the elderly, survivors of sexual and gender-based violence, and
those with special needs. It also advocates adopting national refugee frameworks and accession to international
refugee instruments.
Through stronger partnerships with the various Governments, UNHCR aims to enhance asylum space, including
by: identifying opportunities for local integration; improving livelihoods for urban refugees; ensuring the
smooth voluntary return of refugees from India to Sri Lanka, and possibly Myanmar; identifying other durable
solutions for refugees from Bhutan; supporting a sustainable return for those internally displaced in Sri Lanka,
something that is expected to be facilitated by access to land in the north; and ensuring the expeditious
resettlement of vulnerable refugees, for whom voluntary return to their countries or local integration is not
possible.
In 2015,UNHCR will continue to advocate for a favourable protection environment in South Asia, including
freedom from arbitrary detention and refoulement. It will support national capacity-building efforts of the three
Governments by training border and other law enforcement authorities, judiciary, lawyers, media, and local
NGOs. The Office will work closely with refugee communities to enhance their self-protection and self-
assistance capabilities, until a durable solution can be achieved for groups and individuals of concern to
UNHCR

Response and implementation |

In India, UNHCR will continue to build on the positive understanding it has with the Government regarding
refugee issues. It will review opportunities to: incrementally provide direct refugee protection; share biometric
data; run regular training sessions on RSD processes; and include particularly vulnerable refugees in
government social welfare schemes. The Office will continue to expand its outreach to the Indian public and
engage more prominently with new civil society actors, in order to increase refugee access to urban support
mechanisms.
In Nepal, the Office will continue the resettlement of refugees from Bhutan and, in close cooperation with other
concerned Governments, search for other durable solutions for families remaining in camps. It will continue to
advocate a simpler visa-waiver process for urban refugees who are accepted for resettlement and ways to assure
the safe transit of Tibetans to India. UNHCR will also seek the issuance of documentation for the long-staying
Tibetan population.
In Sri Lanka, UNHCR will enhance its capacity to conduct RSD and resettlement submissions, as the only
durable solution available to refugees. It will seek access to all asylum-seekers and effective protection for them
by the Government. The Office will also facilitate the voluntary return of Sri Lankan refugees and those
internally displaced, in safety and dignity, and will assist them to reintegrate through community mobilization
projects. While phasing out its programme for IDPs in 2015, UNHCR will liaise with other actors to help ensure
a smooth handover

 Financial information |
UNHCR's overall financial requirements for South Asia have gradually decreased during the past five years,
with the 2015 budget set at USD 36.2 million. This trend reflects the downscaling of IDP-related activities in Sri
Lanka and the decreasing number of refugees in Nepal's camps. However, Sri Lanka requires resources to
ensure protection and basic assistance with increasing numbers of asylum-seekers; Nepal needs resources to
sustain the group resettlement programme that is dealing with more complex cases than in the past. Meanwhile,
the financial requirements for India have grown, in accordance with the rising number of refugees living in the
country's urban areas.
UNHCR 2015 budgets for South Asia (USD)

2015

2014 Refugee
Operation Revised budget programm Stateless Reintegration IDP

(as of 30 June 2014) e programme projects projects Total

PILLAR 2 PILLAR 3 PILLAR 4
PILLAR 1

Total 38,207,233 30,979,116 2,015,723 2,523,477 652,398 36,170,713

India 13,638,075 14,492,301 101,898 0 0 14,594,199

Nepal 15,440,453 9,596,550 1,794,026 2,523,477 0 13,914,052

Sri Lanka 9,128,705 6,890,265 119,799 0 652,398 7,662,461

Source: UNHCR Global Appeal 2015 Update

UNHCR's role in refugee protection in India

Although India is not a party to the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees, asylum-seekers who
are not offered direct protection by the Indian government can get refugee status from the
UNHCR in a de facto system of refugee protection in India. But in the recent past, refugees
under UNHCR protection have begun losing faith in a system plagued by insensitivity and
inefficiency

India, along with all the other South Asian states, is not a party to the United Nations
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 (1951 Convention) and the Protocol
Relating to the Status of Refugees 1967 (1967 Protocol). India maintains that the 1951
Convention is Euro-centric and cannot be effectively implemented in the South Asian region.
India also believes that it has always been generous towards refugees, even without being
party to the 1951 Convention. However, critics argue that India is hesitant to accept the
financial responsibility that ensues from undertaking the obligations of the 1951 Convention.
The World Refugee Survey 2007, which rates refugee protection in countries on four
categories of rights -- physical protection, freedom from illegal detention, freedom of
movement and the right to earn a livelihood -- has rated India 'D' in three categories,
signifying 'a level of treatment marginally above the rest' and 'C' with regard to freedom from
illegal detention, signifying that refugees have reasonable access to the Indian judiciary
(SAHRDC, July 11, 2007).

[B]The refugee protection regime in India [/B]

Given the legal vacuum with regard to refugees, the process of addressing large-scale refugee
inflows over the years has been [I]ad hoc[/I], mainly through executive action. This process is
far from appropriate and is often governed by 'political instinct' based on India's diplomatic
relations with the country of origin at the time (Acharya: 2004).

The Foreigners Act 1946 is an outdated and draconian piece of legislation that defines a
foreigner as any person who is not a citizen of India, and includes refugees. A similar
provision was also introduced through an amendment to the Indian Citizenship Act in 2003
which fails to make any distinction between refugees and their special circumstances and
other foreigners and illegal immigrants.

Under Section 3 (2) of the Act, the Indian government has wide discretionary powers to
regulate the entry and movement of foreigners within India. The Foreigners Order 1948 also
restricts the entry of foreigners into Indian territory at given entry points without proper
authorisation. Every foreigner should be in possession of a valid passport and visa at the time
of entry into India, unless exempted. Most often, refugees are not in possession of these
documents and thus are refused entry into India.

Although India is not a party to the 1951 Convention, it is bound by the international
customary law principle of [I]non-refoulement[/I] (this principle prevents a country from
expelling refugees to countries where their life and liberty are under serious threat).The
Foreigners Act allows the Indian government to[I] refoule[/I] foreigners, including asylum-
seekers, through deportation, and is therefore in violation of international customary law.

Article 51 (c) of the Indian Constitution provides that India "shall endeavour to foster respect
for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organised peoples with one
another". Article 253 of the Constitution gives the Indian Parliament the "power to make any
law for the whole or any part of the territory of India for implementing any treaty, agreement
or convention with any other country or countries or any decision made at any international
conference, association or other body". The Indian judiciary has also ruled in favour of
harmonious construction of international and domestic law when it is consistent with
fundamental rights (Visakha v State of Rajasthan,1997 \[6] \[SCC] 241).

The scope and ambit of Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, through progressive
judicial interpretation, extends to non-citizens including refugees. In the landmarkChakma
refugees case, the Supreme Court clearly held that the State was under a constitutional
obligation to protect refugees (National Human Rights Commission v State of Arunachal
Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 1234). InMalvika Karlekar v Union of India(Criminal Writ Petition
No 243 of 1988), the Supreme Court stayed the deportation of Burmese refugees in the
Andaman and Nicobar Islands, as their applications for refugee status were pending with the
UNHCR.

A national model refugee law for granting statutory protection to refugees has long been
considered in India but is yet to be implemented. The model law aims to harmonise norms
and standards on refugee law, establish a procedure for granting refugee status and guarantee
them their rights and fair treatment.

In India, refugees are placed under three broad categories. Category I refugees receive full
protection from the Indian government (for example, Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka);
Category II refugees are those who are granted refugee status by the UNHCR and are
protected under the principle of [I]non-refoulement[/I] (for example, Burmese and Afghan
refugees); and Category III refugees who are neither recognised by the Indian government
nor the UNHCR but have entered India and assimilated into the local community (for
example, Chin refugees from Burma living in the state of Mizoram) (SAHRDC: 1997).

This article explores the problems of Category II refugees in India, in light of the office of the
UNHCR's discharge of its [I]protection[/I] function, through an analysis of the UNHCR's
refugee status determination process and refugee assistance/support programmes and services
provided to recognised refugees.

[B]UNHCR and refugee protection in India[/B]

Those asylum-seekers who are not offered direct protection by the Indian government can
apply for refugee status with the UNHCR. The Statute of the Office of the UNHCR
empowers the UNHCR to issue refugee certificates to those who fulfil the criteria under the
1951 Convention after having conducted interviews with such asylum-seekers for refugee
status determination. The refugee certificates issued by the UNHCR are, in practice,
recognised by the Indian government, creating a [I]de facto [/I]system of refugee protection
in India.

In this context, it would be interesting to note that the Indian government and the UNHCR
share a paradoxical relationship, wherein India has been a member of the executive
committee (ExCom) of the UNHCR since 1995, without being a party to the 1951
Convention and undertaking its obligations. The UNHCR office is situated in New Delhi and
is not allowed to operate in other parts of the country, other than in Tamil Nadu where it
provides limited repatriation assistance to Sri Lankan Tamil refugees recognised by the
Indian government. As a result, refugees located in remote parts of India do not have access
to UNHCR assistance; for example, Burmese refugees living in Mizoram live as illegal
immigrants as they do not have adequate resources to go to Delhi to seek UNHCR protection.

As of 2005, there were 11,356 urban refugees (male: 6,053, female: 5,606) under UNHCR
protection in New Delhi although the total number of refugees stands at 139,283. In 2005, the
UNHCR office in New Delhi recognised 772 individuals as refugees, among 947 new
applicants. Among those already recognised as refugees by the UNHCR, many were provided
with durable solutions through voluntary repatriation (2,792), resettlement in a third country
(155) and naturalisation (1) (UNHCR: 2005).

The 1997 UNHCR Policy on Urban Refugees requires the agency to provide a regular
monthly subsistence allowance (SA) to recognised refugees and their families, but it requires
that "assistance to refugees should be given in a manner that encourages self-reliance and
does not foster long-term dependency". In addition to the SA, recognised refugees are also
provided with other community services by the UNHCR through various local implementing
partners, including medical, educational and legal assistance. However, the Evaluation and
Policy Analysis Unit of the UNHCR has noted with concern that the policy does not
distinguish between State and non-State parties to the 1951 Convention and the difference in
legal status of refugees located therein, and fails to establish a clear link between "attainment
of self-reliance" and local integration. Despite these valid criticisms, the policy is yet to be
reviewed.

The UNHCR also faces a severe resource crunch, with the annual UNHCR budget for India
shrinking from US$ 3,858,589 in 2006 to US$ 3,438,192 in 2007. India's share in the total
UNHCR annual budget for the South Asian region also dropped from 17% in 2006 to 16.7%
in 2007 (UNHCR: 2007). In spite of being a member of the UNHCR ExCom, India's official
contribution of a modest sum of US$ 9,001 towards UNHCR programmes for 2006 is among
the lowest of all donors.
In its country action plan for 2006, the UNHCR has laid down certain strategic goals for its
India programme, which include improving the protection environment for refugees in India
and ensuring age and gender mainstreaming in all its activities, strongly pursuing the need for
adoption of a domestic legal mechanism for refugee protection with the Indian government,
finding durable solutions for Afghan mandate refugees, ensuring voluntary repatriation of Sri
Lankan Tamil refugees, encouraging partnerships between the government, NGOs and the
UNHCR, and pursuing self-reliance goals and being sensitive to refugee welfare and their
vulnerabilities (UNHCR: 2006).

[B]UNHCR's report card on refugee protection in India [/B]

Apart from their struggle for legal recognition in the host country, India, refugees face
discrimination and harassment at the hands of the government, police authorities and local
communities. While it is acknowledged that refugee protection cannot be achieved unless
India ratifies the 1951 Convention and establishes a domestic legal framework for refugees, it
can be argued that the UNHCR has been largely unsuccessful in providing 'protection' and
'durable solutions' to refugees. This section will critique the UNHCR's policies towards
refugees through an analysis of its refugee determination process and the extent and nature of
community services provided to refugees.

[I]The refugee determination process:[/I] In the absence of a concrete domestic refugee

policy in India, the refugee certificate of the UNHCR is of utmost importance. However,
refugees complain that the UNHCR refugee determination process is arbitrary, complicated
and full of delays. SAHRDC reports that refugees and their representative NGOs do not
understand the UNHCR's criteria for refugee status determination and often complain of
unfair treatment during the interview process. Language barriers between refugees and
UNHCR authorities serve as a severe constraint in effective communication, despite the
presence of Burmese interpreters. Those whose applications are rejected are not given
reasons for the same and yet they have the right to appeal the decision before the same
authorities, rendering the appeals process practically meaningless. Delays in the refugee
determination process, with interviews being rescheduled, cancelled or interview letters not
reaching on time further jeopardise the refugees' conditions.

[I]Subsistence allowance (SA) and self-reliance: [/I]The SA scheme administered by the

YMCA, the UNHCR's implementing partner, provides Rs 1,400 per month to recognised
refugees, Rs 600 each to the first three dependants, Rs 450 each for the next three, and Rs
250 each for the remaining family members. The SA scheme is discriminatory towards
women, as a single woman who receives Rs 1,400 per month as SA receives only Rs 600 per
month when she gets married, as a dependant of her husband (SAHRDC: 2003). As regards
disbursement of SA, it has been said that the YMCA has been irregular and non-cooperative.
The SA scheme is gradually being phased out since mid-2003 due to increasing resource
constraints at the UNHCR.

In its bid to promote self-sufficiency among refugees, the UNHCR introduced the Self-
Reliance Programme administered by the Don Bosco Ashalayam (DBA). The DBA provides
six-month vocational courses in computers, beauty parlour training, TV repair, tailoring, etc.
In addition, the YMCA provides short language courses to refugees in Hindi and English. But
many refugees have been forced to discontinue classes due to the poor quality of training,
short duration of courses, etc. Given the fact that even recognised refugees do not have the
legal right to work in India and are not issued a valid work permit, these vocational training
courses are futile as they do not lead to self-reliance, as unrealistically envisaged by the
UNHCR. Even those refugees who do complete the vocational training courses on offer have
no guarantee of employment or a regular source of income. Lack of legal protection over
identity and employment subject them to workplace and pay-related discrimination. They can
seek employment in the informal job market and their employers can hire and fire them
without too much difficulty.
The Basic Salary Scheme being implemented from 2005 ensures that those recognised
refugees who secure employment receive a fixed consolidated monthly salary in accordance
with minimum wage standards. This minimum wage top-up programme ensures that the
UNHCR pays the difference in salary if refugees earn less than the fixed basic salary under
the scheme. Needless to say, the Basic Salary Scheme applies to those recognised refugees
who successfully secure and sustain employment, and the basic salary is often not enough to
make ends meet, especially for larger refugee families. According to noted human rights
activist Ravi Nair, many recognised refugees cannot avail of this scheme as they are unable to
provide the necessary documents such as a residential permit and address proof establishing
their identity as refugees, to the UNHCR.

[B][I]Living conditions:[/I][/B]Most refugees living in India do not see 'local integration' as a

viable solution to their problems. This is primarily attributable to their antagonistic
relationship with the local community. As foreigners, they are often treated as outsiders by
the local population and language barriers further deepen the divide between the two.
Burmese refugees living in west Delhi face discrimination at the hands of their host
community. Landlords evict refugee families on a regular basis on the pretext of late rent
payments and other related problems. Given their poor financial position, refugees are forced
to live in small, overcrowded apartments with no electricity, water, cooking or sanitation
facilities. Although the YMCA conducts home visits to assess the real living conditions of
refugees, the infrequent nature of these visits and insensitivity of staff conducting the visits
hurt rather than help refugee interests. With respect to Afghan refugees, SAHRDC reported
that inconsistent needs assessment surveys conducted by the YMCA, and lack of
understanding of refugee problems, led to SA cut-offs (SAHRDC: 1999).

[B][I]Medical and educational assistance:[/I][/B][B] [/B]The UNHCR offers medical services

to recognised refugees through the Voluntary Health Association of Delhi (VHAD). The
VHAD clinic provides limited medical facilities and basic medicines free of cost to refugees.
VHAD/UNHCR also refers patients to government hospitals and reimburses medical
expenses to a limited extent, only if the patient is being treated at a government medical
facility. Expenses incurred for medical treatment at a private hospital are not reimbursed by
VHAD/UNHCR. Even those who are eligible for medical reimbursement do not receive it in
full and the procedure for providing reimbursements is also extremely discretionary. The
death of Iranian refugee Jehangir Eslah, on June 20, 2007 (World Refugee Day), on being
denied medical reimbursement by the UNHCR as he had sought private medical care instead
of government medical care, exposed the insensitivity of the UNHCR administration towards
refugees.

Similarly, refugee children are provided an education allowance by the UNHCR so that they
can continue their education at the primary and higher level. But this education allowance
does not cover the full costs of a child's education. Although admission to government
schools provides subsidised education facilities to children, the admission procedure is strict
and cumbersome, as a result of which refugee children often find it difficult to gain
admission. For example, many children are unable to fulfil the strict requirement of a birth
certificate as identity proof and adequate residential proof. Thus, they take admission in
private schools which are far more expensive. Many children enrolled in private schools are
forced to drop out midway as their parents are unable to continue paying the high school fees.
With regard to Burmese refugees, it has been seen that families do not see themselves living
in India in the long term. They have an unrealistic expectation of being resettled in a
developed country in the immediate future and do not want their children to study in
government schools, despite their economic situation, because the medium of instruction is
Hindi, not English. Some refugee parents prefer to keep their children out of school rather
than send them to Hindi-medium government schools.

[B][I]Legal service[/I][/B][B]s:[/B]The Socio-Legal Information Centre (SLIC) is authorised

by the UNHCR to provide legal assistance to recognised refugees. Refugees are required to
obtain a residential permit (RP) from the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) of
the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) which has to be renewed on a bi-annual basis. Refugees
are harassed by FRRO officials who refuse to issue or renew RPs or unnecessarily delay the
process. Refugees also face the constant threat of illegal arrest, detention and deportation.
According to the World Refugee Survey 2007, a number of Burmese nationals were deported
from Mizoram and the UNHCR could not intervene due to lack of access. Some Bhutanese
refugees were also deported to Nepal. Four refugees were detained in West Bengal on illegal
immigration charges, of whom three were subsequently released. Similar cases of detention
were also reported from New Delhi. Despite the high number of illegal arrests and detention
of refugees, the SLIC has been of limited assistance.

Despite its limitations, however, the UNHCR is often the last beacon of hope for many
refugees who flee to India in search of a secure refuge. However, in the recent past, refugees
under UNHCR protection have been losing faith in a system that is plagued by insensitivity
and inefficiency. To redeem itself in the eyes of those it seeks to protect, the UNHCR must
engage directly with refugee communities to better understand their problems rather than
delegate all responsibility to its implementing partners. It must also strengthen the refugee
status determination process and ensure effective monitoring and implementation of its
health, education and legal services. At the same time, it must exert pressure on the Indian
government to ratify the 1951 Convention and enact domestic legislation for refugee
protection.

Refugee Rights
Despite the fact that India is a host to diverse groups of refugees, the country has
no specific laws or cohesive policy for refugees. India is not a signatory to the 1951
Refugee Convention nor to its 1967 Protocol on the Status of Refugees. Therefore,
the protection of refugees is confined to ad-hoc measures taken by the Government
of India, leaving refugees with little protection for their civil and political rights and
virtually no legal provisions for their safety and welfare. Against this backdrop, the
Refugee Rights Initiative at HRLN works for the protection of the rights of refugees
and to improve their situation in India with a mission to assist asylum seekers,
refugees and other displaced populations in realizing their basic human rights and
accessing the justice system.

What We Do?

The Refugee Rights Initiative assists refugees in securing their civil and political rights by helping
them acquire Indian citizenship, from which further economic and other rights follow. Our team
has worked with people from multiple nationalities, including but not limited to refugees from
Tibet, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan, Palastine, Iran, Iraq, Burma, Laos, Liberia,
Kazakhstan, Sierra Leone, Eritrea, China, and Afghanistan. We have distinguished ourselves as
being one of the very few groups to assist refugees and asylum seekers by way of counseling,
legal aid, training and a sensitisation programme As an implementing partner of the United
 Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, we provide assistance on a range of services for
refugees. For example, registration of the new arrival and giving orientation to the asylum
seekers, refugee certificate issued by UNHCR has to be renewed every 2 years. At this time, the
entire refugee family meets with our social workers for a current refugee reassessment status,
which includes legal/ protection, socio-economic, medical/psychological, educational/ vocational
components, as well as ample time to air grievances. These activities are combined with efforts to
identify durable solutions for the mandate refugees, which include voluntary repatriation,
naturalization, and third-country resettlement. HRLN also facilitates applications for Indian
citizenship on behalf of mandate refugees eligible and also interested in applying for naturalization
in India. We litigate for safe asylum and the protection of human rights of refugees in the country
by providing free legal aid to refugees and asylum seekers, including support in cases to secure
residence permits, to stop refoulment, for refugees arrested or facing deportation, for the
registration of complaints by the refugees at police stations, and for refugees in crisis situations.
Along with the Women's Justice Initiative at HRLN, we represent women refugees in matrimonial
cases, including for the custody of children. In cases where refugees face problems within the
community or with the police, our team provides assistance through protective interventions with
the local and refugee community and the local police. We also make interventions on behalf of
refugees before various administrative bodies.

The Initiative undertakes crisis-response missions, investigation, monitoring, and fact-finding

visits, such as a mission undertaken in Mizoram to uncover the mass-migration of Chin refugees
from Myanmar. Through its interventions and consultations we work to bridge the gap between
displaced communities and policy makers. We conduct training programmes for the general public,
legal practitioners, law students, activists, social workers, and the police to sensitize them on how
to use the existing laws for refugee protection.

Issues of Concern

 Naturalization
 Renewal of refugee certificates
 Registration of new-arrival refugees
 Residence permits
 Asylum applications
 Deportations
 Mass migrations
 Ethnic/ racial discrimination against refugees

Major Impacts
The Indian government had undertaken a brutal deportation process of many poor and illiterate
Bengali speaking Indians, whom they presumed were Bangladeshis. Members of one family were
forcibly separated, jailed without notices, denied legal aid, handcuffed to train compartments and
deported to Bangladesh. The Refugee Rights initiative handled a number of cases on behalf of
these families and obtained stay orders in a number of cases. In 1999, in one of the first cases of
its kind, upon our intervention the Bombay High Court temporarily restrained the deportation of
Iraqi nationals and the court allowed the UNHCR to meet with persons claiming asylum until their
applications for asylum were decided upon. In 2004, following the arrest of a number Burmese
protestors, our lawyers represented them and secured their release. In yet another case where
two Burmese students had fled from Myanmar and were at risk of being deported from India, the
court recognized and established a non-citizen’s right to life and the right not to be deported when
fearing persecution in their country. The petitioners were finally allowed to go to Sweden with the
help of the UNHCR. (See: BA Aung Vs. Union of India)As an implementing partner with UNHCR,
HRLN is primarily responsible for providing legal assistance to all recognized Burmese refugees in
India.

The Initiative has established a new sub-center in Vikaspuri, to assist refugees in acquiring Indian
citizenship. This has resulted in 648 refugees already attaining Indian citizenship and the
acceptance of over 250 applications by the ministry of home affairs for naturalization. Over the
years, HRLN has assisted over 5000 refugees in certificate renewal, which automatically ensures
that they get their residence permit renewed or extended. This is a particularly important
milestone as it issues forth otherwise unattainable government assistance including financial and
psycho-social support, education, vocational training and employment assistance. Additionally the
permit provides access to durable solutions, including resettlement, local integration, and
voluntary repatriation.