The Delhi High Court has sought a response from the University of Delhi (DU) on a petition challenging the requirement that foreign students must present a valid non-Indian passport for undergraduate admission.
On January 31, 2026, Justice Jasmeet Singh questioned the University’s stance, stating, “How can you expect a passport from a refugee?” The Court allowed time for the University to obtain instructions and scheduled a further hearing on July 13, 2026.
The petition was filed by Henry Htoo Aung Lin, a United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)-recognised Myanmar refugee, represented by Advocates Ashok Aggarwal and Kumar Utkarsh. It contests the passport requirement outlined in DU’s Foreign Students’ Registry (FSR) Admission Bulletin, arguing that it unlawfully excludes recognised refugees who cannot secure passports from their countries of origin due to persecution.
The petitioner requests that the condition be either struck down or modified and that DU consider his application under the Foreign Students’ Category without insisting on a passport.
Henry and his family fled Myanmar in 2022 amid political instability, violence, and fear of persecution, subsequently residing in India under UNHCR protection. After completing his schooling in India, he applied for admission to DU’s 2026-27 academic session through the FSR on May 28, 2026. The University informed him that his application was incomplete due to the absence of a passport. Despite representations to accept his UNHCR refugee documentation instead, no relief was provided.
The petition asserts that requiring a passport imposes an impossible condition on recognised refugees who cannot safely approach authorities of the country they fled. It argues that this violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by equating refugees with ordinary foreign nationals despite their distinct legal and humanitarian status.
The plea notes that DU’s own FSR Admission Bulletin lists a UNHCR Refugee Certificate among prescribed documents, rendering the simultaneous insistence on a national passport contradictory and arbitrary. Furthermore, it highlights that Tibetan nationals are permitted to submit alternative documents such as Registration Certificates when passports are unavailable, and denying similar accommodation to UNHCR-recognised Myanmar refugees constitutes hostile discrimination.
The petition maintains that the passport requirement is unrelated to academic eligibility, as the petitioner’s identity and educational qualifications are established through UNHCR records and certificates from recognised Indian education boards. Henry completed Class X under 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, meaning the law does not compel an impossible act, the petition argues that refugees cannot be required to obtain passports from states they have escaped due to persecution. It further contends that access to higher education is integral to the right to live with dignity under Article 21, and denying admission based on this documentary requirement is arbitrary and disproportionate.
The petition 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 identity established through Indian educational records.
The case is scheduled for further hearing on July 13, 2026.
