High Court Allows Refugee Student to Apply for NEET/JEE: Education Is a Right, Not a Privilege of Citizenship
- ByAdmin --
- 21 Apr 2025 --
- 0 Comments
In a progressive and human rights–oriented verdict, the Delhi High Court has allowed a refugee student residing in India under UNHCR protection to apply for NEET and JEE, India’s premier entrance exams for medical and engineering education. The ruling is being widely seen as a reaffirmation that education is a fundamental right—regardless of citizenship, origin, or nationality.
The petitioner, a 17-year-old student originally from Myanmar and currently residing in Delhi under refugee status, had approached the Court after being barred from registering for NEET due to lack of Indian citizenship or an Aadhaar number—both of which were set as prerequisites on the registration portal.
The Case: Denied an Exam, Denied a Future
The student had excelled in school, secured over 90% marks in her CBSE Class 12 exams, and dreamed of becoming a doctor. However, when she attempted to fill out the NEET form online, the system rejected her application:
- She did not possess an Aadhaar card or valid Indian passport.
- She was not classified under OCI (Overseas Citizen of India) or NRI categories.
- The system had no provision for refugee applicants, even though she had a valid UNHCR refugee card and long-term visa issued by the Government of India.
Left with no recourse, she filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court seeking permission to apply and appear for NEET/JEE on the grounds of Article 21 (right to life and dignity) and Article 14 (equality before law).
The Court’s Ruling: Opportunity Must Precede Citizenship
Justice Prathiba M. Singh, delivering the judgment, made key observations:
1. Right to Education Applies to All Persons, Not Just Citizens
- Referencing the Mohini Jain (1992) and Unnikrishnan (1993) cases, the Court held that education is an essential part of the right to life under Article 21.
- The Constitution does not restrict this right to Indian citizens alone—it applies to “all persons,” including refugees, stateless individuals, and asylum seekers.
2. Administrative Procedure Cannot Trump Fundamental Rights
- The exclusion of the petitioner from the exam, merely because the online portal lacked a refugee category, is an example of “digital exclusion and institutional oversight”.
- The Court directed that manual applications or alternate authentication methods must be allowed in such cases.
3. Refugees with Valid Documents Cannot Be Treated as Illegal Immigrants
- The Court noted that the petitioner possessed a valid UNHCR ID, had been lawfully residing in India for over a decade, and had been issued a Long Term Visa (LTV) by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
- In such a case, denying her educational access is not only unconstitutional—it is inhumane.
Implications of the Ruling: A Wider Door Opens
This judgment has a ripple effect for:
- Thousands of refugee youth from Myanmar, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, and elsewhere currently residing in India
- Stateless children born in refugee camps or urban settlements without citizenship
- Children of asylum seekers and long-term visa holders, who face systemic barriers despite being raised in India
It also puts pressure on:
- National Testing Agencies (like NTA) to create inclusive application procedures
- Educational institutions and ministries to proactively accommodate non-citizen students with lawful residence
Centre’s Stand and Evolving Refugee Policy
While the Government of India did not oppose the petition directly, it stated:
- Exam eligibility rules are governed by concerned ministries and educational bodies.
- The government maintains a case-by-case humanitarian policy for refugees, but has not adopted a formal asylum law.
India is not a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, but hosts over 200,000 refugees and asylum seekers, including Rohingyas, Afghans, Sri Lankan Tamils, and Tibetans.
Expert Reactions and Human Rights Advocacy
Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia Director for Human Rights Watch, called the ruling “a beacon of hope.”
“No child should be denied education because of borders. This verdict protects not just one student’s dream, but the dignity of every displaced child in India.”
Legal experts say the ruling may pave the way for:
- Policy directives by NTA, CBSE, and UGC to define eligibility norms for refugee students
- Standardized procedures for manual application or document verification in entrance exams
- Greater legal recognition of refugees’ civil rights, pending a national asylum law
If You’ve Studied in India, You Deserve to Compete in India
This ruling breaks one of the quietest barriers in Indian education—the invisible wall that kept bright refugee students outside exam halls. It upholds the truth that merit is not the privilege of citizens, and dignity doesn’t depend on paperwork.
Because education is not a favor granted by the state—it is a right promised by the Constitution. And in this courtroom, that promise has been kept.
RELATED Blog
0 comments