E-Paper
2 Myanmar journalists in Delhi for refugee status rebut ‘untraceable claim’ in SC
The seven approached the Manipur high court through human rights activist and lawyer Nandita Haksar and were granted protection to come to Delhi to apply to UNHCR, the UN refugee agency, in May 2021
NEW DELHI: Seven Myanmar nationals, believed to be untraceable by Centre, told the Supreme Court on Friday that they are neither migrants nor Rohingyas and the place of their residence was intimated to the local police soon after they arrived in Delhi a year ago to seek protection against deportation from the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR).
Two among them are journalists working with Mizzima news channel in Myanmar and the remaining four are the wife and three minor children of one of the journalists who took refuge in India following the army coup in Myanmar last year, the court was told.
The seven approached the Manipur high court through human rights activist and lawyer Nandita Haksar and were granted protection to come to Delhi to apply to UNHCR, the UN refugee agency, in May 2021
However, the Centre told the Supreme Court on April 25 to seek a stay on the May 3, 2021 high court, saying the seven persons could not be traced. The top court stayed the high court order and directed their lawyer and rights activist Nandita Haksar to take the responsibility of producing the persons before the authority concerned.
In an affidavit filed on Wednesday, Haskar said: “These journalists are refugees seeking protection from persecution in their country and are not migrants or Rohigyas... One of the journalist, namely Sithu Aung was given Gratis Visa by Government of India, while another journalist namely Pau Khan Thawn and his family has sought and has been granted protection from UNHCR on earlier occasions and was recognized as a refugee by UNHCR and their certificate was renewed from time to time.”
After the HC order, Haksar’s affidavit said the seven arrived in Delhi on May 5 last year and reported to the Vikaspuri police station, under whose jurisdiction they are staying. Subsequently, they were also granted protection by UNHCR which issued them identity cards.
Stating that it was through news reports that the petitioner came to know about the top court’s order, Haksar, through her lawyer Kamini Jaiswal said in the affidavit: “She (Haksar) is being dragged into the present matter without verifying true facts.”
She also produced affidavits of the seven foreign nationals concerned with her affidavit. “The facts and documents placed on record will disclose that the said statement (that they cannot be traced) is unverified and has been deliberately made to mislead and prejudice this court. It is humbly submitted that the concerned person having given such false, misleading instructions be directed to come forward and file an affidavit to that effect.”
The matter was listed before a bench of justices AM Khanwilkar and AS Oka on Friday but the bench decided to take up the hearing on Monday.
The Supreme Court entertained the appeal filed by Centre against the high court after solicitor general Tushar Mehta appeared for the Centre and submitted: “What fundamental rights will apply for a person who comes in and gets out of the country is essentially an executive function. Here these persons who are enjoying High Court’s protection are now untraceable. Since the undertaking was given by the petitioner, she should tell us where they are now.”
Mehta added that the high court verdict proceeded on the basis that the principle of non-refoulement (protection from forcible return) under the UN Refugee Convention, 1951 was part of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, without realizing that India is not a signatory to the 1951 Convention to which it is not bound.
In its verdict, the high court said: “This Court finds it just and proper to extend protection under Article 21 of the Constitution to these seven Myanmarese persons and grant them safe passage to New Delhi to enable them to avail suitable protection from the UNHCR.”
