Back
2021 Supreme(Manipur) 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
SANJAY KUMAR, LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR, JJ.
Nandita Haksar – Petitioner
Versus
State of Manipur, Rep. by the Chief Secretary – Respondent
W.P. (Crl.) No. 6 of 2021, M.C. [W.P. (Crl.)] Nos. 1, 2 of 2021
Decided On : 03-05-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Umakanta, Mr. S. Suresh.
Point of Law: Refugees/Migration - UNHCR has its office only at New Delhi and not at the Indian borders. It is only after UNHCR completes the processes and accords ‘refugee’ status that role of India’s Foreigners Regional Registration Offices (FRROs) may come into play.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 and 21 - Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 - Refugee Convention of 1951 - Whether they can be categorized as ‘migrants’ - Seek protection from United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).
Finding of the Court:
It just and proper to extend protection under Article 21 of Constitution to these seven Myanmarese persons and grant them safe passage to New Delhi to enable them to avail suitable protection from UNHCR. Some of them seem to be in possession of their passports but in any event, their details and particulars have been noted by Immigration authorities of our country. There shall accordingly be a direction to FRRO at Imphal airport to immediately provide them with temporary identification cards to enable them to travel to New Delhi by air, if such identity proofs are necessary. State and Central Governments shall facilitate their travel to New Delhi and shall not cause any obstruction. Petitioner/party-in-person states that she will make the required arrangements for purchase of their air-tickets and would also arrange for their stay at New Delhi, pending consideration of their claims for ‘refugee’ status by the UNHCR.
Result: Writ Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR, J.
1. The petitioner, Ms. Nandita Haksar, a human rights advocate, appears as a party-in-person. Her prayer in this writ petition is to allow the seven named Myanmarese citizens, who entered India illegally, to travel to New Delhi to seek protection from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).
2. The petitioner’s narrative: After the military coup in neighbouring Myanmar during February, 2021, the military junta banned Mizzima, an established Myanmarese media and news service and arrested/detained several of its journalists. Of the seven Myanmarese persons that this writ petition is concerned with, Mr. Pau Khan Thawn and Ms. Cing San Lun, his niece by marriage, are journalists, while Mr. Si Thu Aung is a reporter/ video-journalist, all working with Mizzima. The remaining four are Ms. Niang Go Man, wife of Mr. Pau Khan Thawn, and their three minor children, Master Nang Sian Mung (aged 10 years), Master Nang Khan Hau (aged 9 years) and Ms. Dim Sian Huai Nuam (aged 5 years). They fled their country fearing persecution and physical danger after the coup and the violence that broke out thereafter. They entered India and took shelter at Moreh in Tengnoupal district, Manipur. They sought the help of the petitioner as they feared that they would be sent back to Myanmar by the Assam Rifles, an Indian armed force, as they had come without proper travel documents. The Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, had directed the authorities of the border States in the North-East of India and the Assam Rifles to check the flow of illegal migrants coming into India from Myanmar, vide letter dated 10.03.2021. The petitioner pointed out that this communication did not draw a distinction between a migrant and a refugee. However, letter dated 29.03.2021 was issued by the Government of Manipur stating that it would come to the aid of Myanmarese nationals who had illegally entered the State. Given these circumstances and as the seven Myanmarese individuals are handicapped in approaching this Court on their own, the petitioner/party-in-person espouses their cause and seeks their safe passage to approach the UNHCR at New Delhi for protection.
3. By order dated 17.04.2021, this Court suo motu impleaded the Ministries of Home Affairs, Defence and External Affairs of the Union of India, represented by the respective Secretaries, and adjourned the case to enable the State and the Central Governments to put forth their stands. On 20.04.2021, an adjournment was sought by the learned counsel for the State and Central Governments as they were unable to complete instructions. However, taking note of the petitioner’s prayer for interim relief, this Court directed the State authorities to arrange for the safe transport and passage of these seven persons from Moreh to Imphal. This order was passed in view of the threat of apprehension and deportation faced by them at that location. Pursuant to the above order, they were brought to Imphal and are presently stationed at the local residence of the petitioner. Further, as permitted by this Court, their details and particulars were checked by the Senior Immigration Officer at Moreh before they were brought here.
4. No affidavits-in-opposition were filed by either the State or the Central Governments. Notwithstanding the same, arguments on merits were advanced by Ms. Nandita Haksar, the petitioner/party-in-person; Mr. R.K. Umakanta, learned Government Advocate for the State of Manipur and Mr. S. Suresh, learned ASG, appearing for the Union of India. The case is therefore amenable to final disposal.
5. The two miscellaneous applications filed by the petitioner/party-in-person, seeking to place on record certain additional documents, are allowed and the documents are taken on record, subject to just exceptions.
6. At the outset, the admitted position is that these seven Myanmarese citizens illegally entered India. They did not have the requisite travel documents. However, the qu
