A national of another country, cannot be subjected to treatment below dignity nor could be subjected to physical violence merely because she is 'refugee'

In this case, a human rights advocate is praying for permission 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). The seven Myanmarese individuals in question are not 'migrants', as normally understood, but are 'asylum seekers'. They did not enter India with the clear-cut and deliberate intention of breaking and violating our domestic laws. They fled the country of their origin under imminent threat to their lives and liberty. They aspire for relief under International Conventions that were put in place to offer protection and rehabilitation to refugees/asylum seekers. In such a situation, insisting that they first answer for admitted violations of our domestic laws, as a condition precedent for seeking 'refugee' status, would be palpably inhuman.

They are only seeking safe passage to approach the UNHCR at New Delhi for protection and are not asserting any rights or freedoms under Article 19 of the Constitution. Their claim would be traceable to Article 21 and not to Article 19 of the Constitution. Their claim for such Constitutional protection cannot be denied. A national of another country, cannot be subjected to treatment below dignity nor could be subjected to physical violence merely because she is a 'refugee'

The court finds it just and proper to extend protection under Article 21 of the Constitution to seven Myanmarese persons and grant them safe passage to New Delhi to enable them to avail suitable protection from the UNHCR Some of them seem to have their passports but in any event, their details and particulars have been noted by the Immigration authorities of our country. There shall accordingly be a direction to the 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.

Counsels : Ms. Nandita Haksar, Mr. R.K.Umakanta, GA, Mr. S.Suresh, ASG AJ

Conviction under S. 411 IPC for dishonestly receiving stolen property is invalid when the accused persons are acquitted under S. 379 IPC for theft arising from the same transaction.

AIR 2025 SC 3890 : AIROnline 2025 SC 760 Legal principles "In a criminal prosecution, the initial burden is always on the prosecution to discharge.", "Conviction under Section 411 IPC requires that the property is proved to be stolen property.", "If the prosecution fails to establish

Benefit of maternity leave with allowance to Contractual employee

AIROnline 2022 KER 275 An educational society CPAS is an "establishment" under S. 2(1)(b) of Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, as the term covers any establishment under State law, not only commercial entities. Hence MB Act's applicable to contract employees in establishments like CPAS. Further

Legal Principles Regarding First Appeal S. 96 of Civil P C

AIROnline 2025 MAD 723 "Right of first appeal is a substantive, valuable right and not merely procedural.", "Unless expressly excluded by statute, the right of appeal cannot be limited or taken away by subsequent legislation.", "Appeal is a continuation of the suit.", "Judicial

Read next