Pakistani Hindu refugee camp at Majnu Ka Tila, north Delhi.
| Photo Credit: FILE PHOTO

The Delhi High Court has rejected a plea seeking a stay on the proposed demolition of an illegal colony set up by Hindu refugees from Pakistan along the Yamuna river in north Delhi till an alternative plot of land is allotted to the affected people. The court also vacated an interim stay it had granted on March 12 against the demolition.

Justice Dharmesh Sharma on Friday rejected the plea filed by a man named Ravi Ranjan Singh, seeking orders to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to allot the refugees a different spot in the city as per the provisions in the Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015, before demolishing their tenements.

Mr. Singh argued that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) was framed with the idea of providing Indian citizenship to non-Muslim refugees from the neighbouring countries, to help them escape religious persecution.

‘Must be a citizen’

However, the court said that it “has no hesitation in holding that the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought by way of the present petition” because to be eligible to avail of the provisions of the Delhi government policy, the person seeking relief “must first and foremost be a citizen of India”.

“On account of their nationality, the Pakistani refugees cannot be rehabilitated under the DUSIB policy,” it added.

The court asked the petitioner, as well as the other refugees, to first acquire Indian citizenship, adding that it could “be done online with ease” and asked the Delhi State Legal Service Authority to help the refugees to comply with the necessary legal formalities.

Remarks against Centre

The court added 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 also made observations regarding the court’s attempts to engage with the concerned authorities to facilitate the rehabilitation and relocation of the refugees, saying all its “efforts have been unfruitful, seemingly due to the classic case of bureaucratic buck-passing, particularly on the part of the Union of India”.

The judge added, “Nevertheless, this court cannot undertake the exercise of framing a policy to ameliorate the plight of the refugees.”