30-05-2025
Delhi HC dismisses rehabilitation plea by Pakistani Hindu refugees, flags ‘bureaucratic buck-passing' by Centre
The Delhi High Court Friday dismissed a petition seeking the court's direction to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) not to demolish or disturb the Pakistani Hindu refugee camp comprising around 800 people at Majnu ka Tilla, till some alternative piece of land is allotted in view of the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019.
The court, though, noted that its attempts at facilitating the rehabilitation of the refugees were met with 'bureaucratic buck-passing, particularly by Union of India.'
The area concerned falls in Zone 'O' of the Master Plan Delhi, 2021. In March 2024, the Delhi HC, as an interim relief, had restrained DDA from taking any coercive action. While dismissing the petition on Friday, Justice Dharmesh Sharma vacated the stay.
Notably, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), in an affidavit on May 20, had told the court that the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, enables grant of Indian citizenship to foreigners who belong to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian communities from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh and entered India on or before 31.12.2014, and in view of the same 'no further intervention is required from the side of Ministry of Home Affairs for framing any larger policy or guidelines for rehabilitation of these Pakistani Hindu migrants.'
In light of MHA's stance, Justice Sharma held that 'Pakistani refugees cannot be rehabilitated under the DUSIB (Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board) Policy on account of their foreign nationality status.'
'It is undeniable that even Indian citizens cannot claim alternate allotment as an absolute right, particularly in cases where the land they occupy falls under specially prohibited areas like Zone 'O' of Delhi, i.e., the Yamuna floodplains,' Justice Sharma recorded, noting that the refugee camp is situated in the Yamuna floodplains area.
Also taking into account the 'fundamental human right to a clean and healthy environment for the residents of Delhi and future generations', the court observed, 'Given the critical condition of the Yamuna River, this Court unhesitatingly finds that no interference with the ongoing restoration and rejuvenation efforts of the river can be countenanced at the petitioner's instance. This stance holds irrespective of any humanitarian or sympathetic considerations advanced before the Court, as such indulgence would inevitably obstruct and delay the timely and effective implementation of the aforementioned public projects.'
Justice Sharma concluded, '…this Court made sincere efforts to engage with the concerned authorities to facilitate the rehabilitation and relocation of the refugees. However, these efforts have been unfruitful, seemingly due to a classic case of bureaucratic buck-passing, particularly on the part of the respondent no. 2/ Union of India. Nevertheless, this Court cannot undertake the exercise of framing a policy to ameliorate the plight of the refugees.'
