Assam to drop cases of pre-2015 non-Muslim illegal immigrants from Foreigners Tribunals
According to a directive signed by Additional Chief Secretary (Home and Political) Ajay Tewari on July 22, all district commissioners and senior superintendents of police have been asked to review the status of foreigners like Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Rohingyas.
Guwahati, Aug 7 (PTI) The Assam government has instructed all districts to drop ongoing cases of suspected non-Muslim illegal foreigners entering the state before 2015 from the Foreigners Tribunals, following implementation of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act.
However, it has not been made public yet.
'As per the amendments made to the Citizenship Act, the FTs are not supposed to pursue cases of foreigners belonging to the six specified communities (Hindu, Christian, Buddhist, Sikh, Parsi and Jain communities), who had entered Assam on or prior to 31.12.2014.
'It was suggested to drop all such cases. In this regard, the district commissioner and the Senior SPs should immediately convey a meeting with their respective FT members, and also review the developments periodically and submit the action taken report to this department,' said the minutes of the meeting, which were sent to the districts.
It also suggested that all such foreigners should be encouraged and supported for applying for Indian citizenship, as per provision of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act.
'The Govt of Assam had issued clear cut instructions for withdrawal of all cases filed against people belonging to the Gorkha and Koch Rajbongshi communities. This should be complied with forthwith,' it said.
As per legal provisions, only FTs can declare a person a foreigner in Assam, and subsequently higher courts can be approached if the verdict is not favourable.
In July last year, the Assam government had asked its Border Police wing not to forward the cases of non-Muslim illegal immigrants entering the state before 2015 to Foreigners Tribunals, and instead, advised them to apply for citizenship through CAA.
The Centre had in July, 2024 implemented the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, notifying the rules four years after the law was passed by Parliament to fast-track citizenship for undocumented non-Muslim migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan who came to India before December 31, 2014.
According to the Assam Accord, names of all foreigners coming to the state on or after March 25, 1971 would be detected and deleted from electoral rolls and steps would be taken to deport them.
In a majority verdict, the Supreme Court on October 17 last year upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, which grants Indian citizenship to immigrants who came to Assam between January 1, 1966 and March 25, 1971. PTI TR RBT
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
27 minutes ago
- The Hindu
SC to again hear case in which it had rebuked High Court judge for ‘absurd' order
The Supreme Court is scheduled on August 8 to hear again a disposed of case in which it had, earlier in the week, made scathing observations against an Allahabad High Court judge for passing an 'absurd' order. A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan had reprimanded the High Court judge, Justice Prashant Kumar, for 'cutting a sorry figure for himself', and making 'a mockery of justice'. The order had also brought to fore the Supreme Court's apprehensions about the High Court judiciary's performance. 'We are at our wits' end to understand what is wrong with the Indian judiciary at the level of the High Court. At times we are left wondering whether such orders are passed on some extraneous considerations or it is sheer ignorance of law. Whatever it be, passing of such absurd and erroneous orders is something unpardonable,' a Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan had observed in an August 4 order, disposing of the case. The apex court had taken stern exception to Justice Kumar finding nothing wrong in a litigant filing a criminal case against a buyer in a purely civil dispute over an unpaid balance of money in a sale transaction. The Bench said the High Court judge had found nothing wrong in allowing a criminal case for 'criminal breach of trust' to be registered in the civil dispute. The Bench had further asked the Allahabad High Court Chief Justice to remove Justice Kumar from the criminal roster and not assign any criminal case to the latter till he demitted office.
India.com
27 minutes ago
- India.com
China's Envoy Hits Out At Trump's Tariffs On India, Says ‘Give The Bully An Inch…'
New Delhi: Chinese Ambassador to India Xu Feihong has criticised U.S. President Donald Trump's escalating tariff policies, including the recent imposition of 50% duties on Indian exports. His reaction came through a post on X, where he referenced an old proverb in pointed context. 'Give the bully an inch, he will take a mile,' Xu wrote, attaching a quote from recent discussions between China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Celso Amorim, chief advisor to Brazil's President Lula da Silva. The quote read, 'Using tariffs as a weapon to suppress other countries violates the UN Charter, undermines WTO rules and is both unpopular and unsustainable.' Give the bully an inch, he will take a mile. — Xu Feihong (@China_Amb_India) August 7, 2025 India had initially been in line to finalise a trade agreement with Trump's administration. Negotiators from both sides held five rounds of discussions. However, the process stalled due to disagreements. India was unwilling to open up its large farm and dairy markets. Talks also broke down over New Delhi's decision to continue importing oil from Russia. The Chinese ambassador's criticism comes at a moment when the U.S. president is considering further economic penalties. Trump warned that countries buying Russian oil may face additional tariffs. He made this remark during a recent press conference at the White House. 'It may happen, I don't know, I can't tell you yet. We did it with India and we are doing it probably with a couple of others. One of them could be China,' Trump said in response to a question about new trade restrictions. At present, India, China and Turkey remain the top three buyers of Russian crude. Trump has said new 'secondary tariffs' may be applied if the war in Ukraine does not end by Friday. Earlier this year, tensions rose between Washington and Beijing over trade measures. The United States had increased tariffs on several Chinese goods, reaching as high as 145 per cent. In response, China raised its tariffs but stopped at 125 per cent. Officials in Beijing explained that any further increase would lack economic sense. 'Even if the U.S. further raises tariffs to even higher levels, it would be economically meaningless and would ultimately become a laughingstock in the history of global economics,' a Chinese trade spokesperson had said at the time. Despite the current standoff, Trump has announced intentions to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping later this year. According to the White House, the meeting aims to build the foundation for a new trade agreement between the world's two largest economies.
NDTV
44 minutes ago
- NDTV
'Shields minors': Centre Defends Statutory Age Of 18 Years For Consent In Top Court
New Delhi: The Centre has defended in the Supreme Court the statutory age of consent of 18 years, saying the decision was a "deliberate, well-considered, and coherent" policy choice aimed at shielding minors from sexual exploitation. The Centre, in its written submissions through Additional Solicitor General Aishwaraya Bhati, argued diluting the age of consent or introducing exceptions under the guise of adolescent romance would be not only legally unsound but also dangerous. The government said it would provide a defence mechanism even to those abusers who exploit a child's emotional dependence or silence. The Centre further said the existing statutory age of consent must be strictly and uniformly enforced. "Any departure from this standard, even in the name of reform or adolescent autonomy, would amount to rolling back decades of progress in child protection law, and undermine the deterrent character of statutes like the POCSO (the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Act, 2012 and the BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita).' Moreover, the Centre argued that the discretion on case-to-case basis must remain judicial and must not be read into the statute as a general exception or a diluted standard. 'Introducing a legislative close-in-age exception or reducing the age of consent would irrevocably dilute the statutory presumption of vulnerability that lies at the heart of child protection law. A diluted law risks opening the floodgates to trafficking and other forms of child abuse under the garb of consent,' it said. Lowering the age of consent, the Centre said, would open the "floodgates" to trafficking and other forms of child abuse under the garb of assent. The case before the top court raises the point of age in adolescent relationships. 'The legislative determination to fix the age of consent at eighteen (18) years, and to treat all sexual activities with a person below that age as an offence irrespective of purported consent, is a product of a deliberate, well-considered, and coherent statutory policy,' the Centre said. The law does not treat the age limit as arbitrary and rather, it reflects a constitutional and legislative recognition of a minor's vulnerability, especially in a socio-economic context marked by deep inequalities and power imbalances, it added. A child's inability to report or resist is exacerbated when the perpetrator is a parent or close family member, it said, adding in such cases, presenting 'consent' as a defence only victimises the child, shifts the blame onto them, and undermines the very object of POCSO to protect children from exploitation regardless of whether they were 'willing'. The existing age of consent ought to be retained in order to give full effect to the legislative intent, protect the bodily integrity of children, and uphold the constitutional and statutory safeguards accorded to them, it said. 'The Supreme Court along with high courts across the country have always maintained the sanctity of legal age of consent as 18 years of age. This statutory yardstick has been upheld on numerous occasions, keeping in view the legislative intent and the pre-eminent constitutional mandate of protecting young children,' it said. Earlier, amicus curiae and senior advocate Indira Jaising had urged the bench to read down the statutory age of consent from 18 to 16 years. Jaising, who is assisting the top court in the case, then said the current law criminalises consensual romantic relationships among adolescents and violates their constitutional rights.
