Delhi HC Seeks DU's Response On Myanmar Refugee's Plea Challenging Passport Requirement For Undergraduate Admission

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Friday sought the response of the University of Delhi (DU) on a petition filed by a Myanmar refugee challenging the University's requirement that foreign students must possess a valid non-Indian passport for admission to undergraduate courses.

During the hearing, Justice Jasmeet Singh questioned the University's stand, asking its counsel, "How can you expect a passport from a refugee?" The Court granted time to the University to obtain instructions and listed the matter for further hearing on July 13, 2026.

The petition has been filed by Henry Htoo Aung Lin, a UNHCR-recognised Myanmar refugee, through Advocates Ashok Aggarwal and Kumar Utkarsh.

The plea challenges the validity of the passport requirement contained in Delhi University's Foreign Students' Registry (FSR) Admission Bulletin, contending that it unlawfully excludes recognised refugees who, by the very nature of their status, cannot obtain passports from the countries they fled due to persecution.

The petitioner has sought directions to either strike down or read down the impugned condition and to direct the University to consider his application for admission under the Foreign Students' Category without insisting on production of a passport.

According to the petition, Henry and his family fled Myanmar in 2022 due to political instability, violence and fear of persecution and have since been residing in India under the protection of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

After completing 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 as he had not submitted a passport. Despite making representations requesting that his UNHCR refugee documentation be accepted in place of a passport, no relief was granted.

The petition 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 submits that such a requirement violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by treating refugees on par with ordinary foreign nationals despite their fundamentally different legal and humanitarian status.

The plea further points out that the University's own FSR Admission Bulletin recognises a UNHCR Refugee Certificate as one of the prescribed documents, making the simultaneous insistence on a national passport self-contradictory and arbitrary.

It also highlights that the University's admission framework permits Tibetan nationals to rely on alternative documentation such as a Registration Certificate where passports are unavailable. Denying similar accommodation to UNHCR-recognised Myanmar refugees, the petition contends, amounts to hostile discrimination.

The petitioner argues that the passport requirement bears no nexus to academic eligibility since his identity and educational qualifications are already established through UNHCR records and certificates issued by recognised Indian education boards. He completed Class X from the Mizoram Board of School Education and Class XII (Science) from the Meghalaya Board of School Education.

Invoking the legal maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia, the law does not compel a person to perform an impossible act--the petition submits that a refugee cannot be required to obtain a passport from the very state from which he has escaped persecution. It further argues that access to higher education is an integral part of the right to live with dignity under Article 21 and that denying admission solely on the basis of an impossible documentary requirement is arbitrary and disproportionate.

The petition also clarifies that minor discrepancies in the spelling of the petitioner's name and date of birth in his UNHCR documentation are clerical errors arising during humanitarian registration in conflict situations and should not override the identity established through his Indian educational records. The matter is next listed for hearing on July 13, 2026.

(Except for the headline, this article has not been edited by FPJ's editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)