New Delhi: “We came here for our children. We want them to get an education, unlike us,” said Mohini Bagri, 30, a mother of three with sun-worn skin and steady eyes.
Bagri, a citizen of Pakistan, arrived in Delhi in 2018 with her husband, following her parents, who came to India in 2011.
“This is our home now,” she said.
Along the Yamuna River’s muddy banks in Majnu Ka Tila, north Delhi, over 800 Hindu refugees from Pakistan’s Sindh province cling to their homes. Their patchwork shanties, built with sweat and sacrifice, they said, stand as a haven in the country they moved to in hope of starting a new life.
Pakistani refugees began to settle in the area in 2013 and continue to arrive in buses and trains across the border near Jaisalmer and Amritsar, with the most recent arrivals in March 2025.
Bagri’s family, like many others, had built a modest life in the colony, with children enrolled in local schools and adults working as daily wage labourers or small vendors selling mobile phone covers.
But on 30 May 2025, the Delhi High Court delivered a heart-wrenching blow.
Justice Dharmesh Sharma rejected a plea to stop the demolition of their unauthorised colony until they were rehabilitated—noting that non-citizens were not eligible for rehabilitation, the “critical condition” of the Yamuna River and the need to protect the “ecologically sensitive” floodplains.
In doing so, Justice Sharma lifted a Delhi High Court protective stay that has been in place since 21 March 2024.
Now, the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), a statutory body under the jurisdiction of the central ministry of housing and urban affairs (MoHUA), can move forward with clearing the settlement, leaving these families homeless.
Since 2013, these refugees have called this place home, believing a court order that year granted interim relief, preventing the demolition of the camp pending further hearings, gave them the right to settle here.
The 30 May ruling noted that while responding to a 2013 plea from the refugees titled Nahar Singh v. Union of India, “The statement of the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Union of India was recorded to the effect that help and support would be extended by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, to the aggrieved refugees so that they could be accommodated in accordance with the law.”
Despite these promises, the lives they’ve woven into the fabric of Delhi—kids chasing dreams in local schools, parents scraping by as labourers or street vendors—are in danger, as Justice Sharma clarified that the 2013 order promised only procedural support for Long-Term Visas, not alternative accommodation.
Further, non-citizens were confirmed ineligible for relocation, by the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB), under The Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy 2015.
Many of the residents, still holding Pakistani passports, don’t make the cut.
Justice Sharma pointed them, in the 30 May ruling, to the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) of 2019, urging them to submit online applications with help from the Delhi State Legal Service Authority.
CAA Eligibility
The CAA, passed by Parliament in December 2019, aimed to grant citizenship to migrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan who belong to the Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian faiths. It came into force in January 2020.
From 2020–2024, citizenship was granted to 5,264 people across the country—4,164 by registration and 1,082 by naturalisation, according to the ministry of home affairs’ (MHA) annual reports for the four years. The MHA does not provide data on the total number of citizenship applications or the number of applications rejected.
Article 14 had previously reported, in 2021, on how Pakistani Hindu refugees were struggling to obtain citizenship under the CAA due to confusion over rules, bureaucratic delays, lack of clarity on implementation timelines, and many arriving after the 2014 cutoff, rendering them ineligible—despite expectations that the CAA would benefit them directly.
Bagri, who cannot apply for citizenship under the CAA, as she arrived after 2014—the cut-off year for eligibility—said that even those who had managed to get citizenship under the CAA had not been told of any plans for rehabilitation.
“Hundreds of us have citizenship papers, but the court isn’t thinking of us,” said Bagri. “Where will we go if they tear down our homes?”
Refugees who are not eligible under the CAA may apply for citizenship through naturalisation under the Citizenship Act, 1955, which requires a person to have been legally residing in India for at least 11 years out of the last 14.
The law states that the applicant must not be an illegal migrant, and must not have overstayed their visas to India. This would make the refugees of the Majnu ta Tila colony, who have overstayed their visas, ineligible for citizenship through naturalisation.
Dharamveer Bagdi, who received his Indian citizenship in 2024, a community leader, said that over 300 of the 800 refugees had obtained citizenship. Yet, they’re still at risk, while the rest struggle to complete their applications.
“The online process is a maze for those without documents or digital skills. Some certificates came because of votebank for Delhi’s assembly elections, but many are still in waiting queues,” he said.
Lives Built On Hope
After 18 hearings over 14 months the court’s ruling removed the interim stay against demolition of the Pakistani Hindu refugees’ homes as the DDA faces pressure from the National Green Tribunal (NGT) to clear the Yamuna floodplains, even though no relocation plan exists.
According to the Delhi High Court’s ruling, the MoHUA had sanctioned approximately 59 acres of land along the Yamuna riverfront for rehabilitation of the refugees, however, the court criticized the DDA and central ministries for delaying the development of the site even after demarcation in 2024.
Article 14 reached out to DUSIB via email on 20 July, and its deputy director, PR Cell and deputy director of rehabilitation via WhatsApp on 18 and 20 July, to ascertain why those refugees who had received Indian citizenship were not being rehabilitated. They did not respond. We will update the story if they do.
We spoke with the residents of the colony, those who obtained Indian citizenship, through the CAA, as well as those who have not, who said they are once again in danger of displacement.
Human rights campaigner Shabnam Hashmi said the court’s decision reflects a lack of compassion and understanding toward India’s displaced and marginalised populations. “The government should urgently explore viable alternative housing and comprehensive rehabilitation programs; they deserve the right to live with dignity.”
“Displacement brings not just physical insecurity, but also emotional distress and a profound sense of identity loss. We must strive for a more empathetic and inclusive approach to urban planning and resettlement,” she added.
For the residents of the refugee colony, the ruling felt like a betrayal. Many argued that their long-standing presence in India warranted compassion, particularly given that a third of them possessed Indian citizenship certificates.
Dharamveer Bagdi said, “More than 500 refugees here still hold Pakistani passports, but on the other hand, more than 300 of us in the camp have got citizenship certificates through CAA, yet, they too are not getting any rehabilitation.”
Article 14 reached out to the DDA on 12 June via calls and WhatsApp texts, and on 7 July via email, attempting to ascertain why those who met the citizenship requirements for rehabilitation were not being rehomed. They did not respond. We will update the story if they do.
In June 2025, Article 14 reported how multiple government agencies conducted demolition drives in Delhi without following due process or providing required rehabilitation.
In October 2024, we reported how, despite paying for resettlement, many slum dwellers remain without homes due to bureaucratic wrangling between state and central authorities.
“The court allowed us to settle here in 2013. We didn’t just come and build illegally,” said Sona Das, president of the Hindu refugee community, who received his Indian citizenship in July 2024, referring to the government’s statement in court in 2013. “We’ve been trying to follow the rules, but the system keeps pushing us back.”
Das, who has lived in the colony for over a decade, expressed frustration at what he described as bureaucratic indifference. “They told us to apply for citizenship. What about those of us who already have it? Why are we being punished?” said Das. “Where will we go? Or throw us in the Yamuna.”
Laxmi Bagri, a 32-year-old refugee, holds her youngest child close, as her husband, Tara Bagri, 38, speaks, tears welling up. “I came with lakhs of rupees to give my kids a future,” Tara Bagri said, his voice breaking. “Now, I can’t fix our broken wall or feed them well.”
They said the family left Sindh, in Pakistan, in 2011 to escape religious persecution—looting, beatings, and police indifference because they were Hindus—but had to leave Laxmi’s parents behind. “Women lived under constant fear of abduction, forced conversion, and sexual assault,” Tara Bagri said.
None of the family has applied for Indian citizenship yet, citing costs of commuting for a physical application, though the citizenship process itself is free, and lack of access to the internet and smartphones to apply online.
Their 12-year-old daughter dreams of becoming a police officer, but the threat of demolition looms. “We fled to save our family, our faith,” Laxmi Bagri said. “This is our home now. Why must we lose it again?”
Bureaucratic Roadblocks
The court, in its ruling, pointed to systemic failures, with Justice Sharma noting that efforts to engage with authorities for the refugees’ rehabilitation had been “unfruitful, seemingly due to the classic case of bureaucratic buck-passing, particularly on the part of the Union of India”.
Senior advocate practising in the Supreme Court of India and the founder of Human Rights Law Network, Colin Gonsalves, felt the court had displayed a “lack of courage and conviction” in this issue crucial to the rights of refugees.
“The Indian judiciary has a heart of stone towards refugees and their rights,” he said. “These families have left everything behind. You have to be lenient on them.”
“It is shameful to see that this government, which promotes the rights of Hindus particularly, is treating Hindu refugees in this totally shameful fashion,” Gonsalves added.
Ravi R Singh, one of the petitioners in the case, who is also a social worker and human rights activist, said that the high court observed, in its ruling, that this was not a case of mere encroachment, but a matter of international human rights.
He added that he planned to appeal the high court's ruling in the Supreme Court of India.
“The government is inviting non-Muslim minorities from three countries—Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan—and promises to provide them protection and facilities to live a new life, however, these refugees still live in uncertainty and fear of displacement in the country they had hopes from,” said senior advocate R K Bali, standing legal counsel representing the petitioner. “The problem is you don’t have the arrangements to facilitate refugees.”
BJP spokesperson Praveen S Kapoor said that the new BJP government in Delhi is sensitive towards this issue, and added, “Our government wants to give them a home.”
The BJP came to power in the Delhi assembly after an election in February 2025, when they defeated the Arvind Kejriwal-led Aam Aadmi Party that had been in power since 2013.
Blaming the prior AAP government for the issue, Kapoor said, “Delhi BJP State President Virendra Sachdeva is looking into the issue and he will ensure that they get a roof over their heads.”
Article 14 reached out to AAP’s chief mediaperson Vikas Yogi, and local member of legislative assembly Aaley Mohd, between 9 and 12 June via several calls and WhatsApp texts. They did not respond. The story will be updated if they do.
A Long Legal Struggle
The legal saga began on 12 March 2024, when Justice Mini Pushkarna issued an interim stay in Ravi Ranjan Singh v. Delhi Development Authority, halting DDA’s demolition plans after a public notice pasted on the walls of the settlement on 4 March 2024 gave residents 48 hours to vacate.
Citing the CAA and the pledge from the Union of India (UOI) in the 2013 case to support minority refugees, the court added UOI as a respondent, scheduling a hearing for 19 March 2024.
On 19 March, the stay was extended, with UOI given two weeks to respond. On 25 April, the hearing was adjourned to 10 September 2024.
On 10 September, Justice Dharmesh Sharma noted the NGT's orders to clear the Yamuna floodplains, giving the UOI ten days to submit relocation plans.
The hearing was set for 19 September, but the judge’s absence delayed it to 3 October, then 9 October.
On 9 October, Justice Sharma criticised bureaucratic delays between the MHA and MoHUA, issuing a notice to MoHUA’s secretary for a relocation policy.
The next hearing was set for 25 October, when the court directed UOI and DDA to identify alternative accommodation, requiring a status report by 17 December.
On 17 December, the court noted MoHUA’s allocation of 59 acres to DDA for relocation of eligible refugees, but criticised the lack of progress.
It ordered DDA’s vice chairman to consult the lieutenant governor, MHA, and MoHUA, with a report due by 30 January 2025.
On 30 January, the court delayed action due to the Model Code of Conduct for the Delhi Assembly election, scheduling it for 28 February 2025. On 28 February, the hearing was adjourned to 25 March 2025 due to a lack of time left in the day.
On 25 March, the court noted the MHA’s absence at the DDA meeting intended to find a solution for the refugees, and the increasing pressure from the NGT on DDA to clear encroachments on the Yamuna floodplains. The court summoned additional solicitor general Chetan Sharma for 28 March, when Justice Sharma upheld the stay, citing humanitarian concerns despite the NGT mandates.
On 15 May, MHA requested time to file an affidavit, with the case set for 22 May.
On 22 May, the court reserved its judgment, delivered on 30 May, 2025.
Voices Of Resilience
Mohan, 53, a priest who goes by a single name, is one of the refugees who still does not have citizenship.
“We won’t leave even if the bulldozers come,” he said. “We’ll have no other option but to sit and block the road.”
The colony’s shanties are more than shelters—they’re lifelines. Families like Laxmi’s survive on tight budgets, every rupee stretched.
“We spent everything to make this place livable,” said 60-year-old Raghubeer, a community elder, who goes by the single name. He fled Pakistan in 2011.
“When we first came here, the land was completely uneven,” Raghubeer said. “We spent all our savings to level it.”
Raghubeer’s voice trembled as he recounted the challenges of rebuilding a life in a new country, only to face displacement once more.
“I’ve left everything behind—my home, my land, my neighbourhood, my childhood,” said Raghubeer. “We thought India would protect us, but now they’re telling us to start over again. Where will an old man like me go?”
(Aditya Sharma is a freelance journalist based in Delhi.)
Get exclusive access to new databases, expert analyses, weekly newsletters, book excerpts and new ideas on democracy, law and society in India. Subscribe to Article 14.