.png){kind=small}
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
2 days ago
4
ARTICLE AD BOX
The petition alleged that using this order as an excuse, the state “has reportedly launched a sweeping and indiscriminate drive to detain and deport individuals suspected to be foreigners...” (File photo)
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea challenging the Assam Government’s move to deport Bangladeshis who have entered the country illegally.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and S C Sharma asked the petitioner, All BTC Minority Students Union (ABMSU), to approach the Gauhati High Court. “Sixty-nine people are being deported, please go to the Gauhati High Court,” the court said.
On February 4, a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan had asked the state to do the needful to deport 63 declared foreigners. The government had then said that it was awaiting confirmation of their nationality. They were subsequently confirmed to be Bangladeshi nationals.
The petition alleged that using this order as an excuse, the state “has reportedly launched a sweeping and indiscriminate drive to detain and deport individuals suspected to be foreigners…” Citing some of the alleged deportations, the plea argued that “these instances are not isolated, but part of an emerging pattern where individuals are detained and deported without Foreigners Tribunal declarations, nationality verification by the MEA, or even an opportunity to appeal.”
“These instances reflect a growing pattern of deportations conducted by the Assam Police and administrative machinery through informal ‘push back’ mechanisms, without any judicial oversight or adherence to the safeguards envisaged by the Constitution of India or this court,” ABMSU claimed.
In a related development, the court also agreed to take up next week a habeas corpus petition filed by a man who alleged that his mother had been picked up for deportation and since then, her whereabouts are not known.
Initially, the bench said it will tag it with a pending plea on illegal immigrants. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, however, urged the court to issue notice, so that the state can reply. “We don’t know. Son doesn’t know. Let them say. If she is in Bangladesh, it’s another matter.” Sibal contended that the arrest of the petitioner’s mother violated norms on arrest laid down by the Supreme Court in the D K Basu case.
Story continues below this ad
“Your Lordships know she has to be produced within 24 hours. She is not produced. Picked up from the house. Directly in violation of the DK Basu judgment. SP goes to the house, picks her up and throws her. How can that be?” the senior counsel submitted.
The court issued notice and fixed it for hearing early next week.
English (US) ·