{"id":667,"date":"2017-09-22T11:11:20","date_gmt":"2017-09-22T11:11:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/tibetanlegalassociation.org\/en\/?p=667"},"modified":"2017-10-19T05:25:54","modified_gmt":"2017-10-19T05:25:54","slug":"report-on-rc-case-from-4-9-2017-18-9-2017","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/tibetanlegalassociation.org\/en\/report-on-rc-case-from-4-9-2017-18-9-2017\/","title":{"rendered":"FINAL OUTCOME OF THE RC CASE"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"REPORT OF TLA LAWYER MS. NAMGYAL TSEKEY\u2019S OFFICIAL TRIP TO
\nDEHRADUN TO FILE APPEAL BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &
\nSESSION JUDGE (SPECIAL) POCSO DEHRADUN
\nAppeal No.127\/2017\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 (4.9.2017- 17.9.2017)
\nCase: A Tibetan school student who was born in Nepal, was charged for using
\na forged birth certificate with birthplace as India while applying for new
\nRegistration Certificate (RC) under Foreigners Act . The case was initiated against
\nthe child in Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), Dehradun U\/S: 420\/466 \/468\/471 IPC
\nand S-14 of the Foreigners Act, for illegal entry and illegal stay without RC .
\nBackground:
\n1 His parents came from Tibet and stayed for several years in Nepal before
\nfinally departing to India. His parents did not know about the Special Entry
\nPermit (SEP) which was mandatory for Tibetans to enter India. 2
\nThe child was left by his divorced parents in the school under the custody of
\nXXX school at the very young age, and they left for Austria.
\n3 He was young and unaware that RC is required as soon as possible after his
\nentry to India.
\n4 Infact he was told that he should have RC when he attains the age of 17
\nwith the mandatory document i.e birth certificate .
\nSo, while the matter was pending before the JJB , an appeal was made to the
\nMinistry of Home Affairs (MHA), New Dellhi for immediate help as the power to
\ngrant RC lies with the Central Government. Thus the representation was made
\nthrough the Tibetan legal Association (TLA) on behalf of the boy and initiated
\nthe formal Application for RC through FRO Dehradun submitted on 24. 5.2017
\nand official follow up representation on behalf of CTA though the Bureau office of
\nH.H the Dalai Lama, New Delhi was made on 30.5.2017.
\n\u25aa 23. 8.2017 ( Judgment of JJB)
\nThe JJB, Dehradun in its judgment dated 23.8.2017 acquitted the boy on charges
\nunder section 466 and 468 for forgery of the birth certificate but found him to be in
\nviolation of the section 420 \/471 for wrongful delivery and use of forged
\ndocument, and section 14 of the Foreigners Act for illegal entry and staying in
\nIndia without RC since many years. Consequently, the boy was given an ultimatum
\nof 45 days to remain in India, during which he would be staying at the Place of
\nSafety in Roshnabadh Haridwar. Meanwhile, he needed to obtain RC\/stay-permit
\nby approaching the Ministry of Home affairs, Central Government or FRRO
\nDehradun, failing to do so within the stipulated period would result him deported
\nto Nepal .
\n1 iv) The JJB in its judgment para 77 states:
\n\u201cThat in compliance of principle of the conventional international laws,
\nthe defense side principally stated that on the humanitarian ground, the child may
\nbe granted the status of a refugee and be given a permission to stay in India.
\nThe interpretation of conventional international law and to issue direction to the
\ncentral government or any competent authority to grant stay permit to any
\nforeigner is outside the jurisdiction of Juvenile Justice Board. It is a policy matter
\nto grant stay permit to a Tibetan refugee and issuance of Registration Certificate
\nas a Tibetan refugee . The power to take such decisions lies with the central
\ngovernment or FRO Dehradun.\u201d
\nAdministrative Appeal through CTA : TLA Lawyer Ms. Namgyal Tsekey
\nupdated the case to Department of security, CTA, and rushed to Delhi on
\n29.8.2017 \u2013 31.8.2017 with the intent to approach MHA with an official of the
\nBureau office . She updated the final judgment of the JJB with regard to the RC
\ncase to the Secretary of the Bureau office, and as the MHA was shifting to a new
\nbuilding, Bureau Office made an urgent appeal letter addressed to Mr. Mukesh
\nMithal, Joint Secretary,FRO, (MHA) requesting the grant of RC to the said
\nTibetan child .
\nThis letter was submitted to the appellate court to show that the RC proceedings
\nwas pending for approval and being followed up.
\nAPPEAL BEFORE THE CHILDREN\u2019 COURT, POCSO, DEHRADUN
\n4.9.2017 TLA lawyer Ms. Namgyal Tsekey went to Dehradun to Appeal
\nbefore the Children\u2019s Court Special , POCSO.
\n\u25aa 5. 9.2017 Ms. Namgyal Tsekey approached the FRO Dehradun and
\nrequested them\u00a0 to exercise its power delegated under section 3 of the Foreigners Act,<\/p>\n

to which the LIU said the matter had already been submitted to MHA through FRO and the
\nultimate power on the matter lies with MHA.
\n\u25aa 7. 9.2017 ( Thrusday) Drafted appeal and application along with advocate
\nKailash Khanduri who assisted the child in the case No. 250\/2015 before
\nJJB. The appeal stated that the judgment of the lower court did not consider
\nthe Article 21 and 51 of the Indian Constitution which says the foreigners
\nare entitled to protection of his life and liberty and Article 51(c) of the
\nConstitution which casts a duty on the State to endeavor to \u201cfoster respect
\nfor international law and treaty obligations in the dealing of organized
\npeople with one another\u201d and the Refugee Convention and Convention on
\nRights of child was not considered. The appeal also requested for two
\nmonths period to obtain RC and to accept the undertaking letter by XX
\nschool for his safe custody till the RC is issued.
\n\u25aa 9.2017 ( Friday) The appeal along with the application was duly filed at
\n10.30 a.m and was accordingly admitted . The Appeal No. 127\/2017 was
\nset for hearing on Monday i.e 11.9.2017
\n13.9.2017 ( Wednesday) Ms. Namgyal Tsekey and Advocate Kailash Khanduri
\nappeared for the hearing . The Court agreed to accept the application and allow
\nthe school to take care and custody of the child till he got RC. The court further
\nsummoned for verification of the school as required by law which was done
\nthrough the local police chowki.
\n15. 9.2017 ( Friday)& 16.9.2017<\/strong>
\nMs. Namgyal Tsekey appeared for the hearing. The appellate court agreed to
\ndispose the case .
\n\u25aa a) The honorable Madam Judge agreed to close the case and amend the
\nlower court\u2019s judgment with regard to the quantum of stay at safety place to
\nthe days already spent till now .
\n\u25aa b) Further the subjective deportation was extended for a period of two
\nmonths .
\n\u25aa c) The appellate court in its judgment dated 16.9.2017 amended the
\nlanguage from the judgment of the lower court \u201c in case of not obtaining
\nRC from the MHA or FRO within the stipulated period,\u201d the appellate
\njudgment states: \u201cif the RC or stay permit is not granted by the MHA or
\nFRO , in such event, then the child may be deported\u201d. Which means the
\nFRO or MHA is required to make a conscious decision to grant or not to
\ngrant an RC\/stay permit within two months.
\n\u25aa d) Thus, the appellate court stayed the subjective deportation for a\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 period of two months.
\n\u25aa<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

REPORT OF TLA LAWYER MS. NAMGYAL TSEKEY\u2019S OFFICIAL TRIP TO DEHRADUN TO FILE APPEAL BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE (SPECIAL) POCSO DEHRADUN Appeal No.127\/2017\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 (4.9.2017- 17.9.2017) Case: A Tibetan school student who was born in Nepal, was charged for using a forged birth certificate with birthplace as\u2026 Read More »<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":222,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[30],"class_list":["post-667","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-final-outcome-of-the-rc-case"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/tibetanlegalassociation.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/667","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/tibetanlegalassociation.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/tibetanlegalassociation.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tibetanlegalassociation.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tibetanlegalassociation.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=667"}],"version-history":[{"count":21,"href":"https:\/\/tibetanlegalassociation.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/667\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":717,"href":"https:\/\/tibetanlegalassociation.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/667\/revisions\/717"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tibetanlegalassociation.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/222"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/tibetanlegalassociation.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=667"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tibetanlegalassociation.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=667"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tibetanlegalassociation.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=667"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}