A Myanmar refugee has approached the Delhi High Court to contest the University of Delhi’s admission policy, which requires foreign students to hold a non-Indian passport. The petitioner argues that this rule excludes refugees who cannot obtain travel documents from the countries they fled.
The petitioner seeks the court’s intervention to invalidate or modify the eligibility condition in the University’s Foreign Students’ Registry (FSR) Admission Bulletin, which mandates possession of a non-Indian passport without providing exemptions or alternative documentation for refugees recognised by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). He also requests the University to consider his application for admission to an undergraduate programme under the Foreign Students’ Category without insisting on a passport.
Henry Htoo Aung Lin states that he and his family fled Myanmar due to political instability, violence, and fear of persecution, and have been living in India under UNHCR protection since 2022. Having completed 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 notified him that his application was incomplete as he did not submit a passport.
Despite requests for the University to accept his UNHCR documents instead of a passport, no relief was granted, leading him to file the petition. The plea, filed by Advocate Ashok Aggarwal and Advocate Kumar Utkarsh, asserts that the University’s requirement imposes an impossible condition on recognised refugees who cannot safely approach the authorities of the country they fled.
The petition argues that the policy breaches Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by equating refugees with ordinary foreign nationals despite their different circumstances. It points out that the University’s own Foreign Students’ Registry admission bulletin lists a “Refugee Certificate from UNHCR” among the required documents. However, the simultaneous demand for a national passport renders this provision ineffective, as refugees typically cannot obtain passports from their countries of origin. This is described as a self-contradictory and arbitrary requirement.
The petitioner also highlights that the FSR framework permits Tibetan nationals, who may likewise lack passports, to rely on an alternative document such as a Registration Certificate. Denying a similar accommodation to UNHCR-recognised refugees from Myanmar constitutes hostile discrimination and violates constitutional equality guarantees, the petition claims. It further asserts that the passport condition is unrelated to academic eligibility.
According to the plea, the petitioner’s identity and academic qualifications are established through his UNHCR documentation and certificates from recognised Indian education boards. He completed Class X with the Mizoram Board of School Education and Class XII Science stream with the Meghalaya Board of School Education prior to applying for admission.
Invoking the legal maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia—that the law does not compel a person to do the impossible—the petitioner submits that refugees cannot be required to obtain passports from states from which they fled persecution. The petition argues that access to higher education is integral to the right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution, and that denial of admission due solely to an impossible documentary requirement is arbitrary and disproportionate.
The petition also notes that minor discrepancies in the spelling of the petitioner’s name and date of birth in his UNHCR card are clerical errors resulting from humanitarian documentation amid conflict and do not override identity established through Indian educational records.
