Indian judge mocks UN refugee agency for issuing cards to migrants

NEW DELHI, India (MNTV) — A Supreme Court judge has drawn criticism after ridiculing the United Nations refugee agency for issuing identity cards to asylum seekers in India, questioning its role in the country’s refugee process.

During a hearing earlier this week, Justice Surya Kant remarked that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) had “opened a showroom” in India and was “issuing certificates” to migrants, LiveLaw reported. 

His comments came while a two-judge bench, also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi, was hearing the petition of a Sudanese national seeking protection from deportation while awaiting asylum in Australia.

The petitioner, who has lived in India since 2013 with his wife and two children, argued through senior advocate S. Muralidhar that those carrying UNHCR-issued refugee cards are treated inconsistently by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Foreigners’ Registration Office, despite undergoing a lengthy verification process before receiving the documents.

Justice Kant, however, appeared unconvinced, suggesting that the UN agency’s activities in India lacked legitimacy. “They have opened a showroom here, issuing certificates… we don’t want to comment on them,” he said, according to the court transcript.

Justice Bagchi added that since India has not ratified the 1951 Refugee Convention, refugee status and rights are not recognised under domestic law. The bench ultimately disposed of the case but allowed the petitioner to seek protection from the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) while his request for asylum in Australia is under consideration.

Muralidhar told the court that Africans in Delhi have faced arbitrary detentions in recent months, creating fear among asylum seekers. Justice Kant responded by warning that India must be “very careful,” remarking that “hundreds of thousands are sitting here,” referring to the large number of undocumented migrants in the country.

Earlier this year, another Supreme Court bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta made similar observations, stating that UNHCR-issued identity cards do not automatically grant Rohingya refugees legal rights to relief in India.

India is not a signatory to either the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol, meaning it has no binding obligation to grant asylum or refugee protections under international law. 

However, rights advocates argue that New Delhi remains bound by broader human rights treaties, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which require protection against refoulement — the forced return of individuals to countries where they risk persecution.

The case has reignited debate over India’s ad hoc refugee policy, where protection often depends on political discretion rather than legal safeguards, leaving thousands of asylum seekers in a state of legal limbo.