Tag Archives: human rights

Delhi, Legal

Supreme Court to Hear Plea Seeking Education and Healthcare Access for Rohingya Refugees in Delhi

Leave a comment

The Supreme Court of India is set to deliberate on a significant plea concerning the rights of Rohingya refugees in the national capital. The petition, filed by the NGO Rohingya Human Rights Initiative, seeks directives for the Centre and the Delhi government to grant these refugees access to public schools and hospitals. The hearing is scheduled before a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh.

Rohingya Refugees Plea

On January 31, the apex court requested the NGO to provide detailed information about the settlements of Rohingya refugees in Delhi and the facilities available to them. Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, representing the NGO, was instructed to submit an affidavit specifying these details. Gonsalves highlighted that the refugees, despite possessing United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) cards, are denied access to essential services due to the absence of Aadhaar cards. He emphasized that while UNHCR cards identify them as refugees, the lack of Aadhaar cards—a primary identification document in India—has become a barrier to accessing public services.

The Rohingya refugee community in Delhi resides in various areas under challenging conditions: Shaheen Bagh and Kalindi Kunj: Many refugees live in informal settlements or slums in these regions. Khajuri Khas: In this area, several refugees have managed to secure rented accommodations. These living conditions often lack basic amenities, further exacerbating the difficulties faced by the community.

Legal Arguments and Government’s Stance

The NGO’s petition underscores the denial of fundamental rights to Rohingya children, particularly in education and healthcare. The plea seeks a directive for authorities to admit all Rohingya children into public schools free of cost, irrespective of Aadhaar card possession. It also requests that these children be allowed to participate in examinations, including those for classes 10, 12, and graduation, without the insistence on government-issued ID proofs.

The plea also seeks an extension of government benefits such as free health services in public hospitals, subsidized food grains under the Antyodaya Anna Yojana scheme, and entitlements under the Food Security Act to Rohingya families, regardless of their citizenship status.

In previous related cases, the central government has maintained that Rohingya refugees have the right to access public schools and hospitals. However, the lack of Aadhaar cards has been a significant impediment, as these cards are often mandatory for availing various public services.

Judicial Observations

The Supreme Court has sought clarity on the living arrangements of the Rohingya refugees to determine the appropriate nature of relief. The bench noted that understanding whether the refugees reside in camps or residential colonies is crucial, as the type of relief required may differ based on their living conditions.

While UNHCR cards recognize them as refugees, the absence of Aadhaar cards—a widely accepted identification document in India—restricts their access to essential services. Many Rohingya children are denied admission to public schools due to the lack of Aadhaar cards. This denial hampers their educational prospects and future opportunities. Without Aadhaar cards, accessing public healthcare facilities becomes challenging, leaving the community vulnerable to health crises. Residing in informal settlements or rented accommodations without basic amenities exposes them to health and safety risks.

Globally, the Rohingya have been recognized as one of the most persecuted minorities. Fleeing systemic violence and discrimination in Myanmar, many have sought refuge in neighboring countries, including India. International human rights organizations have consistently advocated for their protection and access to basic services in host countries.

The upcoming Supreme Court hearing is pivotal in determining the future of Rohingya refugees in Delhi. A favorable verdict could pave the way for improved access to essential services, ensuring that the community can lead lives with dignity and security. Conversely, a denial could perpetuate their struggles, leaving them in a state of vulnerability. The case underscores the broader challenges of refugee integration and the balance between national policies and humanitarian obligations.

Internet, Policy, International

UN Rights Chief Asserts: Regulating Hate Speech Online Is Not Censorship

Leave a comment

In a rapidly evolving digital landscape, the intersection of free speech and online safety has taken center stage yet again. On January 10, 2025, Volker Turk, the United Nations’ High Commissioner for Human Rights, emphasized the importance of regulating harmful online content, stating unequivocally that such regulation does not constitute censorship. His remarks came in the wake of Meta’s decision to dismantle its fact-checking program on Facebook and Instagram, sparking renewed debate about content governance.

Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, announced on January 7, 2025, its plans to eliminate fact-checking initiatives across its platforms. CEO Mark Zuckerberg revealed that the company would transition to a community-based content moderation approach akin to X’s (formerly Twitter) “community notes” system. According to Zuckerberg, the decision was prompted by concerns about “excessive mistakes and censorship” within the fact-checking framework.

Meta’s decision comes amidst mounting criticism from various quarters, particularly conservative voices. Former U.S. President Donald Trump’s Republican Party and X’s owner Elon Musk have long accused fact-checking systems of harboring biases that infringe upon free expression. Currently, Facebook collaborates with approximately 80 organizations worldwide, including AFP, to implement fact-checking initiatives in 26 languages. These efforts also extend to WhatsApp and Instagram.

Volker Turk’s Firm Stance on Digital Accountability

Volker Turk, addressing the issue on social media platform X, made his position clear. “Allowing hate speech and harmful content online has real-world consequences. Regulating such content is not censorship,” he stated. Turk underscored the need for “accountability and governance in the digital space” as vital components of safeguarding human rights.

Expanding his commentary on LinkedIn, Turk delved deeper into the dual-edged nature of social media. “When at its best, social media is a place where people with divergent views can exchange, if not always agree,” he wrote. However, he warned of the dangers posed by unregulated digital platforms, which he said can amplify conflict, incite hatred, and compromise safety.

Turk also dismissed the notion that regulatory measures amount to censorship. “Labeling efforts to create safe online spaces as ‘censorship’ ignores the reality that unregulated environments often silence marginalized voices,” he said. He further argued that permitting hateful content online curtails free expression and leads to tangible harm.

Balancing Freedom of Expression and Online Safety

The core of Turk’s argument lies in striking a balance between preserving freedom of expression and mitigating online harm. “Freedom of expression thrives when diverse voices can be heard without enabling harm or disinformation,” he asserted. According to Turk, digital accountability and governance not only protect public discourse but also foster trust and uphold human dignity.

These comments echo long-standing concerns about the role of social media in shaping societal narratives. Numerous studies and incidents have demonstrated how digital platforms can propagate misinformation, incite violence, and deepen societal divisions.

UN’s Perspective on Social Media Engagement

When questioned about the potential impact of Meta’s policy shift on the UN’s social media engagement, UN spokesperson Michele Zaccheo indicated a cautious approach. “We are constantly evaluating the space and monitoring developments,” Zaccheo said. He highlighted the prevalence of hate speech and disinformation campaigns targeting UN agencies on various platforms but emphasized the importance of maintaining a presence to disseminate fact-based information.

Similarly, Margaret Harris, a spokesperson for the World Health Organization (WHO), reiterated the necessity of leveraging all available platforms to deliver reliable health information. “Our role is to provide good science-based health information, and we need to provide that wherever people are looking for it,” she said.

Meta’s decision to pivot away from traditional fact-checking mechanisms has ignited widespread debate about the effectiveness and ethics of different content moderation strategies. While proponents of community-based moderation argue that it democratizes content oversight, critics worry about the potential for increased misinformation and hate speech.

The shift also raises questions about corporate responsibility in the digital age. By prioritizing user-driven moderation, companies like Meta and X place significant trust in their user bases to police content—a move that may have unintended consequences for vulnerable communities and public discourse.

As the debate over regulating online content intensifies, the fundamental challenge lies in balancing freedom of expression with the need for safe digital environments. Volker Turk’s call for accountability and governance underscores the importance of protecting human rights in the digital space. Meanwhile, Meta’s controversial policy shift serves as a stark reminder of the complexities involved in moderating online content.

In an era where digital platforms wield immense influence over public opinion, the need for thoughtful, inclusive, and effective content governance has never been more urgent. As global conversations continue, one thing remains clear: the stakes in the battle for safe and equitable online spaces are incredibly high.