On July 31, the Bombay High Court directed a Yemeni immigrant living illegally in India with his wife and children to seek asylum in Pakistan, rejecting his plea for asylum in India. The court emphasised that while India is generous, it should not be taken advantage of by Khalid Gomai Mohammed Hassan.
A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Prithviraj Chavan heard the case on Wednesday (July 31, 2024). The court remarked, “You can go to Pakistan, which is in the neighbourhood. Or you can go to any Gulf country. Do not take undue advantage of India’s liberal attitude.”
Khalid Gomai Mohammed Hassan, a Yemeni national, had been living in India for several years without a visa, along with his wife and daughter. Despite his visa expiring many years ago, he remained in the country.
The Pune police had issued him a notice to leave the country, which he contested in the Bombay High Court.
Hassan argued that he holds a refugee card issued by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) and claimed that expelling him from India would violate both the Indian Constitution and United Nations regulations. He also sought relief, as he wanted to move to Australia.
However, the court noted that the petitioner could not take ‘undue advantage’ of India’s liberal attitude, reiterating that he had options to seek asylum in neighbouring Pakistan or any Gulf country.
In his plea, Khalid Gomai Mohammed Hassan stated that he had been living in India for the last 10 years due to the severe humanitarian crisis in Yemen, which is experiencing the world’s worst humanitarian disaster. He highlighted that the ongoing civil war has displaced 4.5 million nationals and left two-thirds of the population in a state of humanitarian crisis.
“Forcible deportation to Yemen would lead to persecution, posing a threat to the life and limb of the petitioner and his family—wife and children. The proposed deportation is contrary to International Customary Laws and violates the Constitution of India as it infringes on basic human rights,” Hassan argued.
Hassan arrived in India in March 2014 on a student visa, and his wife arrived in May 2015 on a medical visa. Their visas expired in February 2017 and September 2015, respectively.
The Pune Police issued a Leave India Notice to the family first in February this year and a subsequent one in April, asking them to leave India within 14 days of receiving the notice.
Before the bench, the petitioners sought protection from deportation until they obtained a visa for Australia.
However, the bench agreed with special counsel Sandesh Patil, representing the Pune Police, that the petitioner could seek asylum in 129 other countries that permit refugee cardholders. Yet, the petitioner insisted on protection.
“We can only grant you protection for 15 days or so, but not more than that,” the bench clarified, urging the petitioner to complete the necessary paperwork for the Australia visa.
During the hearing, the judges inquired about the nationality of the girl child born to the petitioner during his stay in India.
“So, by birth, she would acquire Indian Citizenship. Mr. Patil, what are the rules for such a scenario wherein a child is an Indian citizen, but the parents are not?” the bench asked.
Patil responded, “Milords, Indian citizenship can be acquired by birth only if either parent is Indian. Here, both parents are from Yemen. Also, the birth took place after the parents’ visas expired, making the parents illegal immigrants. Therefore, citizenship cannot be granted to such a child.”
The bench, however, requested Patil to gather more information about the girl child, including her age and current educational status.
The matter will be heard again next week.
