Kathmandu, October 5
The Supreme Court has ordered the government not to restrict the children and family members of Bhutanese refugees from leaving the country.
The court said preventing refugee children from travelling abroad obstructs their legal resettlement, family reunification and safe movement. It issued a mandamus order directing the government to facilitate their departure.
Hearing a writ petition filed after a refugee family was denied permission to travel abroad, the Supreme Court said freedom of movement and family reunification are protected principles in the international refugee protection framework.
“Standards that prevent unnecessary, disproportionate or arbitrary barriers to the free movement and family reunification of refugees have been established as binding norms,” the court said. “Nepal, like any other state, has a duty to facilitate rather than obstruct the resettlement process.”
The court also said preventing children of refugees from reuniting with their parents disrupts family unity and is contrary to the principles of international protection.
“Such action must be regarded as contrary to the inaction of responsible authorities and the principle of the rule of law,” the court said. “Where the state has a responsibility, the government cannot remain a mere spectator. Appropriate and necessary facilitation must be provided to remove obstacles to refugee family reunification.”
Sonika Ankari, Sandhya Ankari and Srijan Ankari are siblings born at the Beldangi refugee camp in Jhapa. Their father, Monikumar, came to Jhapa as a refugee after fleeing repression and human rights violations in Bhutan in the 1990s.
Under the UN refugee agency’s third-country resettlement programme, Monikumar travelled to the United States in 2015. Their mother, Gita Giri, also travelled to the United States in 2024.
The three children then applied to the District Administration Office in Jhapa in May for a recommendation to obtain travel documents.
The District Administration Office refused to issue the recommendation, saying the children were not registered in the refugee management information system.
According to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Monikumar’s refugee status had been removed from the records after he was resettled in a third country. Since their mother was not a registered refugee, the ministry argued that the children could not be granted exit permission as refugees.
The Supreme Court, however, questioned the decision after finding that the children had birth registration records, DNA tests had confirmed their relationship with their parents, and both parents had travelled to the United States in connection with their refugee status and family relationship.
The court said the District Administration Office should have examined the application submitted after completion of the required legal procedures and made an immediate decision on whether to grant permission.
Questioning the failure to make such a decision despite the available evidence, the court said, “Such acts amount to a constructive violation of the right of refugee families to leave the country and the right to family life.”
The Supreme Court held that the children should not have been prevented at the administrative level from obtaining exit permission when their father had reached the United States as a refugee and their mother had also travelled there through their marital relationship.
“Denying refugee children permission to leave the country means obstructing their legal resettlement, family reunification and safe movement,” the court said.
The court issued a mandamus order directing the authorities to provide the children with exit permits so that they could be resettled in the United States.
