Nepal’s supreme court orders govt not to obstruct refugees seeking resettlement in third countries

KATHMANDU: The Supreme Court has ordered the government not to obstruct refugees residing in Nepal from traveling to third countries for resettlement, ruling that immigration laws cannot be used to penalize individuals who have already been recognized as refugees.

In a landmark interpretation, the court quashed a decision taken at the Home Secretary level that had barred a Bhutanese refugee family from leaving Nepal on charges of immigration violations, including alleged overstay and non-payment of fines. The ruling makes it clear that refugees living in Nepal cannot be treated as ordinary foreigners under immigration law.

The full text of the verdict, delivered on Kartik 9, 2082 (October 26, 2025) by Justices Sunil Kumar Pokharel and Shrikanta Paudel, was made public earlier this week. The court warned that actions contrary to established refugee principles would be unlawful.

The case involved Roshan Basnet, a third-generation Bhutanese refugee living in the Beldangi refugee camp in Jhapa. His family had received approval from the Canadian government for resettlement. However, when they attempted to leave Nepal last year, authorities stopped them, citing violations of immigration law and demanding fees and penalties for alleged illegal stay.

District Administration Office (DAO), Jhapa, had argued that the family failed to renew their refugee identity cards after 2017 and therefore could not be confirmed as legally residing in Nepal. Based on this reasoning, the administration concluded that the family had overstayed illegally and must pay fines before being granted exit permission. This proposal was approved on April 24, 2024, by then Home Secretary Eknarayan Aryal.

However, documents presented before the Supreme Court showed that the Nepal government had officially recognized Basnet’s family as refugees on December 9, 1992, and that their refugee identity cards had been renewed until 2017. The court also found that after the suspension of the refugee resettlement program in 2016, renewal of refugee identity cards had been halted for many refugees, despite their willingness to comply with renewal procedures.

The Supreme Court held that failure to renew refugee registration alone does not terminate refugee status. It ruled that refugees do not automatically become foreigners subject to immigration penalties simply because their identity documents were not updated.

“If that were the case, the state would have to deport them to Bhutan,” the court noted in its verdict, adding that such an action would directly contradict the government’s own earlier certification that the refugees’ lives would be at risk if returned to their country of origin.

Although Nepal is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, the court emphasized that the government had granted refugee status to Bhutanese refugees through special decisions and must act consistently with international refugee norms and its own past recognitions.

The court clarified that once refugee status is granted, only three outcomes are possible: voluntary return to the country of origin once conditions improve; resettlement in a third country with facilitation from the host state; or local integration in the host country. While Nepal has not adopted a policy of local integration through citizenship, it cannot obstruct refugees from pursuing third-country resettlement.

In Basnet’s case, the court concluded that the family could neither safely return to Bhutan nor integrate permanently in Nepal, making third-country resettlement the only viable option. As such, any attempt to block their departure was deemed unlawful.

The Supreme Court further ruled that provisions of the Immigration Act, which require visas and allow fines for overstaying foreigners, do not apply to refugees residing in Nepal unless they entered on a visa that later expired. It found the Home Secretary’s decision to impose fees and deny exit permission to be legally unsound.

The court has ordered the government to allow the family to leave Nepal without charging any fees or penalties and to ensure that refugees are not obstructed when traveling abroad for approved resettlement. The ruling is expected to have wide implications for the treatment of Bhutanese and other refugees residing in Nepal, particularly those seeking third-country relocation.