&w=3840&q=100)
SC rejects plea on deportation drive in Assam, asks petitioner to move HC
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma told the petitioner to approach the Gauhati High Court in the matter
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea which alleged that the Assam government has reportedly launched a "sweeping" drive to detain and deport persons suspected to be foreigners without nationality verification or exhaustion of legal remedies.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma told the petitioner to approach the Gauhati High Court in the matter.
"Why are you not going to the Gauhati High Court?" the bench asked senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, who appeared for petitioner All BTC Minority Students Union.
Hegde said the plea was based on an order passed by the apex court earlier.
"Please go to the Gauhati High Court," the bench observed.
Hegde said the petitioner would withdraw the plea to take appropriate recourse before the high court.
The bench allowed him to withdraw the plea.
The plea, filed through advocate Adeel Ahmed, referred to a February 4 order of the top court which, while dealing with a separate petition, had directed Assam to initiate the process of deportation of 63 declared foreign nationals, whose nationality was known, within two weeks.
"Pursuant to the said order (of February 4)... the state of Assam has reportedly launched a sweeping and indiscriminate drive to detain and deport individuals suspected to be foreigners, even in the absence of foreigners tribunal declarations, nationality verification, or exhaustion of legal remedies," the plea claimed.
It referred to news reports, including one about a retired school teacher who was allegedly "pushed back" into Bangladesh.
"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," it claimed.
"The 'push back' policy, as implemented, violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by deporting individuals without due process, thereby denying them the opportunity to contest their deportation and infringing upon their right to life and personal liberty," the plea claimed.
It alleged that the indiscriminate application of deportation directives, coupled with absence of proper identification, verification and notice mechanisms, has resulted in a situation where Indian citizens were being wrongfully incarcerated and threatened with removal to foreign territories without lawful basis.
The plea sought a direction that no person shall be deported pursuant to the February 4 order without a prior reasoned declaration by the foreigners tribunal, without adequate opportunity of appeal or review and verification of nationality by the Ministry of External Affairs.
It also sought a declaration that the "push back" policy adopted by Assam was violative of Articles 14 (equality before law) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution and contrary to binding judicial precedents.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Indian Express
24 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Impeachment motion against Justice Varma: Govt reaches out to Opposition to build consensus ahead of Monsoon Session
Initiating the process for bringing an impeachment motion against former Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma during the upcoming Monsoon Session of Parliament, the government reached out to Opposition parties on Tuesday in an attempt to build political consensus. Confirming this, Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju told The Indian Express: 'I have reached out to the leaders of all major political parties. It's not a political issue, it's a matter of seriousness related to corruption in the judiciary. There is no scope for any political angle in it. We will evolve a consensus.' The move comes a month after a three-member panel set up by the Supreme Court, on May 3, had found credence in the allegations that wads of currency notes were discovered at Justice Varma's official residence when a fire broke out there on March 14. He has since been transferred to the Allahabad High Court. According to sources, Home Minister Amit Shah and Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal met Prime Minister Narendra Modi earlier on Tuesday to finalise preparations for the exercise. Shah, along with Leader of the House in Rajya Sabha J P Nadda, also met Vice President and Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar. Following these meetings, Rijiju reached out to Opposition leaders. On May 28, The Indian Express had reported that the government was likely to bring an impeachment motion in the Monsoon Session, which is likely to begin in the third week of July. According to sources, Congress leader Jairam Ramesh was among those who Rijiju spoke to on Tuesday. Sources in the Congress said the party was discussing the issue but indicated that it would not have a problem in supporting the move. The party, in fact, is of the view that the government should convene a special session of Parliament at the earliest to set in motion the process and also devise a mechanism for ensuring judicial accountability. This is in line with the resolution passed by the Congress at the April AICC session in Ahmedabad, which said: 'While the Congress recognises that an independent judiciary is intrinsic to protection of Constitutional principles and democracy, it is also true that the judiciary must set safeguards and standards for accountability. A mechanism for judicial accountability, without compromising judicial independence, is the need of the hour.' The Opposition has been given to understand that Meghwal himself could move the motion seeking Justice Varma's impeachment, based on the report of the Supreme Court-appointed committee. As per the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, a complaint against a judge has to be made through a resolution signed at least by 100 members if moved in Lok Sabha and 50 members if initiated in Rajya Sabha. Once the MPs submit the motion, the presiding officer of the House can either accept or reject it. With the government taking the initiative and seeking to build political consensus, it is expected that the presiding officer would accept it. After a motion for impeachment is adopted by either House, the Speaker/ Chairman has to constitute a three-member committee of inquiry, headed by the Chief Justice of India or a Supreme Court judge, and including a Chief Justice of any High Court, and a person who is in the opinion of the Speaker/ Chairman, a 'distinguished jurist'. If the committee renders a guilty finding, the report of the committee is then adopted by the House in which it was introduced, and the judge's removal is debated. For an impeachment motion against an SC or HC judge to go through, at least two-thirds of those 'present and voting' in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha must vote in favour of removing the judge — and the number of votes in favour must be more than 50% of the 'total membership' of each House. If Parliament passes such a vote, the President will pass an order for the removal of the judge. Meanwhile, Opposition leaders said Parliament can dispense with the process of setting up a probe committee since the three-member committee appointed by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna — comprising Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana; Justice G S Sandhawalia, Chief Justice of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh; and Justice Anu Sivaraman, Judge of the High Court of Karnataka — has already indicted Justice Varma. The Indian Express had reported on May 9 that then CJI Khanna had forwarded a copy of the inquiry report, along with a recommendation to initiate impeachment proceedings against the judge to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Modi. Justice Varma was asked to resign but he is learnt to have refused to do so. He was transferred out on March 20 and he took oath as judge at the Allahabad High Court on April 5, but has not been assigned work.


News18
34 minutes ago
- News18
Donald Trump To Speak With Xi Jinping On June 6 Amid US-China Tariff Tensions
Curated By : Last Updated: June 04, 2025, 07:08 IST US President Donald Trump and China's President Xi Jinping (Image Credit: Reuters) US President Donald Trump is likely to speak with his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, on Friday, June 6. This comes days after Trump accused China of breaking a deal to reduce tariffs and trade limits. The agenda of the call is likely to sort out disagreements over last month's tariff deal made in Geneva, besides other major trade issues between the two countries. Mahima Joshi Mahima Joshi, Sub-Editor at works with the India and Breaking team. Covering national stories and bringing breaking news to the table are her forte. She is deeply interested in Indian politics and a... Read More Mahima Joshi, Sub-Editor at works with the India and Breaking team. Covering national stories and bringing breaking news to the table are her forte. She is deeply interested in Indian politics and a... Read More News world Donald Trump To Speak With Xi Jinping On June 6 Amid US-China Tariff Tensions


Hindustan Times
37 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Thane MCOCA court acquits 14 alleged Ravi Pujari gang members
MUMBAI: A special court in Thane designated under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) has acquitted 14 men accused of being members of gangster Ravi Pujari's syndicate, citing lack of sufficient evidence. Ravi Pujari is a notorious gangster who was allegedly involved in various murders and threats to Indian celebrities and businessmen. The court in Thane held that the prosecution failed to establish the charges against the 14 men, who were arrested by the Thane police crime branch following mobile phone surveillance and intelligence inputs suggesting a plan to rob multiple jewellery shops in the city. The men were charged with a series of serious offences, including preparation to commit dacoity, membership of a gang of dacoits, criminal conspiracy, possession of deadly weapons in violation of the Arms Act, disobedience of police orders, and offences under MCOCA, including committing and conspiring organised crime. Trial proceedings against eight of the accused were separated after they went absconding. In its detailed order issued on May 29, Special Judge Amit Shete noted that the prosecution failed to submit critical evidence, including details of the phone numbers allegedly under surveillance. 'The intercepted conversations do not indicate any clear plan to commit robbery,' the court observed. 'There is no material on record to show that the accused persons, by forming an organised crime syndicate, were indulging in offences for wrongful gain,' the court said. It also found no evidence of the accused being involved in a single common crime, weakening the case for criminal conspiracy. 'In conclusion, the investigating agencies have failed to collect sufficient material to implicate the accused. They are entitled to the benefit of doubt,' the court held. The verdict comes days after a court in Mumbai acquitted gangster Ravi Pujari in a separate case — the 1999 murder of Anil Sharma, an alleged aide of Dawood Ibrahim — marking one of the first judgments since Pujari's extradition from Senegal in 2020.