The Supreme Court of India criticized the UNHCR for “opening a showroom” by issuing refugee cards without legal backing, highlighting India’s non-signatory status to the Refugee Convention and reigniting debate over the nation’s asylum policy.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a critique of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the Supreme Court of India has expressed concern over the agency’s practice of issuing refugee cards to immigrants residing in the country. The court remarked that the UN agency appeared to have “opened a showroom” in India and was freely distributing certificates without any statutory backing.
ALSO READ: Ink & Chemicals Used in Lottery Ticket Printing Are Taxable: Supreme Court
The Case: A Sudanese Man’s Plea
The comments came during the hearing of a petition filed by a Sudanese national who has been living in India since 2013. The petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate S. Muralidhar, sought interim protection from deportation while he awaits asylum in Australia. He currently resides in India with his wife and two children, including a 40-day-old infant. His family members possess UNHCR-issued refugee cards.
Advocate Muralidhar argued that individuals with such refugee cards are treated differently by authorities like the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Foreigners’ Registration Office (FRO). He emphasized that the UNHCR follows a thorough verification process before issuing these cards, a process that may take years.
The Supreme Court’s Observations
Justice Surya Kant, presiding alongside Justice Joymalya Bagchi, was notably critical of the UNHCR’s role.
“They (the UN Agency) have opened a showroom here, they are issuing certificates to… we don’t want to comment on them,”
Justice Kant observed, hinting at a perceived lack of legal basis for the agency’s operations in India.
Justice Bagchi also pointed out that India is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol. Therefore, refugee status under international law does not automatically confer any legal rights under Indian law.
“A corresponding legal right under municipal law does not really exist,”
Justice Bagchi stated.
Concerns Over Detentions
The petitioner’s counsel raised concerns over a recent surge in detentions of African nationals in Delhi. He argued that his client fears being targeted and detained, highlighting the absence of clear legal protection for refugees and asylum-seekers in India.
When questioned on why the petitioner did not relocate to Australia immediately, the lawyer explained that he intends to do so but is seeking temporary protection until the process is complete. The bench, however, declined to grant interim relief, noting:
“We must be extremely cautious… There are lakhs of people in similar situations.”
The court eventually disposed of the petition, allowing the petitioner to approach the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) for further directions, including protection from coercive action. The bench noted that the NHRC had already taken cognisance of the matter.
India currently hosts thousands of refugees from countries such as Myanmar, Afghanistan, Sudan, and Somalia. However, in the absence of a national refugee law, their rights and protections remain largely dependent on executive discretion and humanitarian considerations rather than statutory entitlement.
Earlier in May 2025, a Delhi court hearing a case concerning Rohingya refugees reiterated that UNHCR cards alone cannot be the basis for claiming legal protection from deportation. This reinforces India’s position that while humanitarian assistance is extended in certain cases, UNHCR recognition does not carry legal force under Indian law.
Case Title:
YOUSIF HAROUN YAGOUB MOHAMED Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
W.P.(C) No. 931/2025