UK adds India to 'Deport Now Appeal Later' list amid immigration crackdown
'For far too long, foreign criminals have been exploiting our immigration system, remaining in the UK for months or even years while their appeals drag on. That has to end,' said Home Secretary Yvette Cooper.'Those who commit crimes in our country cannot be allowed to manipulate the system, which is why we are restoring control and sending a clear message that our laws must be respected and will be enforced,' she said.The list of countries covered under the remote hearing scheme, revived in 2023 by then Conservative home secretary Suella Braverman, included Finland, Nigeria, Estonia, Albania, Belize, Mauritius, Tanzania and Kosovo.Now, India will be added along with Angola, Australia, Botswana, Brunei, Bulgaria, Canada, Guyana, Indonesia, Kenya, Latvia, Lebanon, Malaysia, Uganda and Zambia.The UK government said it remains in continuous discussions with 'a range of other countries about joining the scheme'.'We are leading diplomatic efforts to increase the number of countries where foreign criminals can be swiftly returned, and if they want to appeal, they can do so safely from their home country. Under this scheme, we're investing in international partnerships that uphold our security and make our streets safer,' said Foreign Secretary David Lammy.According to the Home Office, previously offenders from the countries on the expanded list could remain in the UK for months or years while their cases were worked through the appeals system as an 'added burden on the British taxpayer' beyond the end of the prison sentences.It also released the latest figures to highlight that around 5,200 foreign nationals were deported since July 2024 when the Labour government came into office, an increase of 14 per cent over the previous year.Additionally, the government said it is legislating to ensure that asylum seekers who commit notifiable sex offences can be stripped of their right to claim refugee protection under new powers in the Borders Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill.It is said to have invested GBP 5 million for the deployment of specialist staff to almost 80 jails around England and Wales to speed up removals and deportations.advertisementThe UK Ministry of Justice (MoJ), meanwhile, announced it will go further on a previous legislation from June stipulating that most foreign prisoners can now be deported to their home country after serving just 30 per cent of their prison time, rather than 50 per cent.Stripping back what it termed as 'a decades-old law', new powers will see the immediate deportation of criminals from prison, and such offenders will then be barred from re-entering the UK.Terrorists, murderers and others serving life sentences will continue to have to serve their prison sentence before being considered for deportation.'Deportations are up under this government, and with this new law they will happen earlier than ever before. Our message is clear: if you abuse our hospitality and break our laws, we will send you packing,' said Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood.The changes will apply to prisoners serving fixed-term, or determinate, sentences and discretion to not use the measure on a case-by-case basis will be retained, the ministry said.According to official data referenced by the MoJ, foreign offenders make up around 12 per cent of the total prison population, with prison places costing GBP 54,000 a year on average.The tougher new measures will apply to all foreign national offenders already in custody as well as those newly sentenced, with legislation to be tabled in Parliament in the next session.- EndsTune InMust Watch
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
33 minutes ago
- The Hindu
The last stand before the divide: Remembering the INA Trials and the Idea of India
Justice Sir Achhru Ram Sehgal of the Lahore High Court was no stranger to legal principle. But nothing in his long career had prepared him for this moment; he would have to choose between the judge's robe and the role of a father. His son, Captain Prem Sehgal, formerly of the Indian Army, now stood accused of treason for his role in joining and fighting for the Indian National Army (INA). In order to help coordinate a legal defence for his son, Sir Achhru Ram went to submit his resignation to the Chief Justice of Lahore, Sir Arthur Trevor Harries. But Harries, a man steeped in the British judicial tradition of fair play, simply looked at his colleague and said, 'Why don't you take leave instead?' With that gesture, Harries allowed the legal system to remain intact while showing rare human sympathy. That moment, brief and undocumented in legal texts, carried the moral clarity that often evades entire regimes. We in today's India, can only speculate at what an Indian Chief justice would do, if a brother judge offered his resignation to defend a child charged under the UAPA or other draconian legislation. Defence of national unity A defence committee had been formed by the Congress. It included many legends: Tej Bahadur Sapru, Asaf Ali, K.N. Katju, and a younger Nehruvian generation eager to lend voice to freedom. All appeared pro bono. But they still needed a place to work. It was Sir Achhru Ram who arranged for a bungalow in West Delhi — a legal war room where briefs were prepared, arguments debated, and strategy planned. The bungalow became a crucible of national lawyering, where personal egos gave way to the national cause. The INA Defence Committee knew there was only one man who could carry the moral and legal weight of the case: Bhulabhai Desai of Bombay. But Desai, gravely ill and advised complete rest, initially declined. That changed when Captain Lakshmi Sahgal, from a prison cell in Kohima, sent word: 'Only Bhulabhai must speak for us.' Even then, Desai hesitated. But when Sir Achhru Ram quietly told him that Prem Sehgal was his son, Desai accepted. In court, he stood for hours without notes, without rest, making the case that shook the Empire. His feet were swollen, his eyes puffy, there were days that he had to be carried to the courtroom on a chair.. His doctors despaired of his health, but Bhulabhai soldiered on. At one stage, he even told his team, 'If death comes to me, let it come; but I cannot allow the jeopardising of the lives of our precious patriots.' Desai's principal argument was audacious: the INA was not a rebel outfit but the legitimate Army of a Provisional Government of Free India. The provisional government had de facto control over territory in Northeast India and the Andamans. It had recognition from nine sovereign states. Its soldiers, therefore, were prisoners of war, not traitors. Desai invoked international law, the Atlantic Charter, and common sense. M.C. Setalvad, in his biography of Desai, records, 'His fundamental thesis was 'that a nation or part of a nation does reach a stage where it is entitled to wage war for its liberation'; that was well-accepted International Law. If he was right, acts done by persons acting as a part of the nation which was fighting for its liberation would be immune, by reason of International Law, from being offences under the municipal law of the country. He urged that the evidence led by the prosecution itself showed that, in the case before the Court, there was really a Provisional Government of Free India — a separate new Indian State which was fighting for the liberation of hundreds of thousands of Indian nationals.' Outside the Red Fort, slogans rang through the air: 'Lal Qile se uthi aawaz: Sehgal, Dhillon, Shahnawaz!' The names became household symbols of courage and 'a dramatic symbol of national unity'. Not only did the Congress express sympathy with them and organise their defence, the Muslim League also took the same attitude. A great wave of patriotic feeling and sympathy swept the whole country. Jawaharlal Nehru best described the national mood, later in a letter dated May 4, 1946 to the British Commander-in-Chief, Field Marshal Auchinleck: 'Within a few weeks the story of the I.N.A. had percolated to the remotest villages in India and everywhere there was admiration for them and apprehension as to their possible fate. No political organization, however strong and efficient, could have produced this enormous reaction in India. It was one of those rare things which just fit into the mood of the people, reflect as it were, and provide an opportunity for the public to give expression to that mood. The reason for this was obvious. Individuals were not known nor were many facts known to the pubic. The story as it developed seemed to the people just another aspect of India's struggle for independence and the individuals concerned became symbols in the public mind.' Then Jawaharlal Nehru donned his lawyer's robes again after 30 years and stood as one of the 17 lawyers for the defence. The people of Delhi and its surrounding areas, simply came and stood outside the Red Fort to express solidarity with those on trial. Many years later, Ch Bansilal a fellow MP, told Subhashini Ali, the daughter of Prem and Lakshmi Sehgal, how he, as a young lad, would take a few rotis packed by his mother, catch a bus from distant Bhiwani and come to Delhi to stand in solidarity. He was not the only one. At Sharif Manzil in Ballimaran, crowds would gather on its roof to look towards the Red Fort. Tea would be supplied by the household of the Hakim family which owned the building. Hakim Sahab had to send word one day that the people were welcome, but not in such a number as to cause the roof to fall down. This unity of Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, and women under the INA banner posed an existential threat to colonial rule. For a brief moment, a still undivided India saw what unity in diversity could look like. The judges still ruled guilty and sentenced Sehgal, Dhillon and Shahnawaz to transportation for life, but the verdict was political suicide for the Raj. Auchinleck wrote to the British government, 'while nothing that we do now will gain us positive goodwill, we can substantially reduce the present bitterness by calling off these trials and announcing a general amnesty... If it should be felt advisable in the light of the general political background to adopt the solution, which appears to be recommended practically unanimously by Indian opinion, of dropping the remaining trials, the only possible way to proceed would, in my opinion, be for His Majesty's Government, possibly in the name of the King himself, to state that, while they think the line taken in India by the Government is both logical and in accordance with humanity, they feel that they must recognise the wave of sentiment of this subject which has swept over India, and in view of the coming political talks, they have therefore decided on a general amnesty.' The advice given by Auchinleck was accepted. The sentences of transportation were remitted and never carried out. Desai retuned to Bombay in January 1946, but collapsed soon after and died in May 1946. His courtroom performance at the Red Fort remains one of the most heroic episodes in Indian legal history. A final flicker The INA trials were India's last great moment of national unity before the darkness of Direct Action Day and Partition descended. Within months, the harmony of Sehgal, Dhillon, and Shahnawaz gave way to communal carnage and conflagration that shattered India. But the trials remind us that the idea of India — inclusive, just, and fair — was not born out of compromise, but of courage. The judiciary, the Bar, and the people showed what it meant to rise above circumstance. It is that India we must remember every August 15. The Red Fort once hosted courtrooms. It now hosts the Prime Minister's speech. Perhaps this Independence Day, someone will remember that it once echoed not with just oratory, but with the cry: 'Lal Qile se uthi aawaz: Sehgal, Dhillon, Shahnawaz!' And maybe, just maybe, we'll listen. After freedom Justice Achhru Ram returned to the Bench and later confirmed the death sentences of Gandhiji's assassins. Post-retirement, he became India's first Custodian-General of Evacuee Property and later enjoyed a distinguished career as a senior advocate in the Supreme Court. Captain Prem Sehgal and Captain Lakshmi Sahgal married and settled in Kanpur. Lakshmi resumed her career as a gynaecologist and later joined the Communist Party. She ran for President of India as the Opposition's candidate. Their daughter, Subhashini Ali, followed her into public life and activism. Arthur Trevor Harries, ever the fair-minded judge, sought to become Chief Justice in the new dominion of Pakistan. But Jinnah did not approve of him. Harries quietly continued as Chief Justice of Calcutta and retired in 1952 and returned to England. General Shahnawaz Khan, though his family belonged to the area which became Pakistan, chose to stay on in India. He even served as a Minister in several Union Cabinets. He semi-adopted a girl from Hyderabad, Lateef Fatima, who married one of his aides from Peshawar Meer Taj Mohammed Khan. The son from that marriage would go on to embody a syncretic India on the silver screen. His name is Shahrukh Khan. Sanjay Hegde is a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court of India.
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
Rebels Against The Raj: How Foreigners Defied Empire To Support India
Long before global solidarity became a buzzword, a handful of Westerners crossed continents to stand with India against British colonial rule. Rebels Against The Raj by historian Ramachandra Guha brought their stories to life, chronicling seven outsiders: four British, two American, and an Irish left their homelands to support India's fight for independence. "A foreigner deserves to be welcomed only when he mixes with the Indigenous people as sugar does with milk," said Mahatma Gandhi, as quoted in the 2022 book. Guha called them "rebels" and compared them to the International Brigade in the Spanish Civil War. Yet unlike soldiers, these travellers were inspired by Gandhi's philosophy of nonviolent satyagraha rather than armed revolt. The Seven Rebels Annie Besant The British social reformer became a leading figure in the Home Rule Movement, advocating for Indian self-governance. "Once she had chosen to become an Indian, she would be an Indian all the way through," Guha wrote in his book. Samuel Stokes A Quaker (a member of the Religious Society of Friends) from Philadelphia, Stokes moved to India, changed his name to Satyanand Stokes, converted to Hinduism, and became a social reformer. Before World War II, he challenged Gandhi's view on nonviolence: "Britain and her allies represent the earlier wave of imperialism as opposed to the new one that threatens the world... Nazis have shown themselves capable of the utmost ruthlessness." Guha wrote Gandhi did not "respond to what was perhaps the greater question raised by Stokes - the fundamental difference between German imperialism and British imperialism." BG Horniman An English journalist and editor of the Bombay Chronicle, Horniman's fearless reporting and support for Indian rights led to imprisonment and eventual expulsion from India. Philip Spratt A British socialist who co-founded India's Communist Party and was jailed for activism. Madeline Slade (Mira/Mira Behen) Daughter of a British admiral, she became Gandhi's close associate and disciple. Decades later, she advised Richard Attenborough on his Gandhi biopic, appearing in the film at Gandhi's side. She also played a role in the Salt March. Catherine Mary Heilemann (Sarala Behen) An Irish woman who worked alongside Gandhi, advancing social reforms and rural development. Ralph Richard Keithahn An American missionary who became a dedicated supporter of India's independence. Arriving in Madurai in 1925, he was inspired by Gandhi's principles of nonviolence and self-reliance, adopting Indian dress and khadi. Later, he embraced Indian spiritual traditions and lived in an ashram.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Tracks to Freedom: how railways kick-started the journey towards nationhood
For a nation of shopkeepers, intent on expanding its market reach, the final outcome of introducing the railways in India was something that the English East India Company (EIC) and its successor, the British Raj, did not bargain or foresee: the prising out of the jewel in the crown. India lagged England and its other colonies in flagging off its railways. The steam horse was brought in after much deliberation and with financial guarantees to British capital, primarily for military and freight movement. But when it did arrive, the most unexpected response was the gusto with which Indians took to it as passengers. Freeing them from their domestic confines and giving them the liberty to travel, admittedly only in Third Class (or Fourth until 1885), the popular support that the railways enjoyed elevated it to a cash cow for the several private companies that ran multitude of lines. New-found mobility gave Indians several freedoms — of movement, of exchange of ideas, of thought processes. It opened them up to recognise, accept, and respect mutual differences in a diverse country. Travelling gave them a sense of tangibility to places that were only words. Amidst futile protestations of the forced reality of inter-mingling and commensality between castes or religions, social or economic considerations, they also experienced commonness, and indeed that of oneness — all of which kick-started the journey towards nationhood — sentiments ready to be harnessed by leaders of the freedom movement. Medium, mode, and methods When the Sepoy Mutiny descended on the EIC, barely four years after it introduced passenger services from Bombay to Thane in 1853, the nascent railway network fulfilled a primary defence objective by deploying military trains to move troops and weapons, and siege-trains for counter-attacks. This rebellion was quelled. It was only a matter of time when nationalists, fired by visions of a free India, took to the railways — not just as a mode to traverse long distances but also to appropriate it as a medium to resist, challenge, and liberate fellow citizens from colonial oppression. Between the 1857-Sepoy Mutiny and the 1920-Non-Cooperation Movement by Mahatma Gandhi, the rail network grew from 571.14 km to 59,119.25 km, connecting cities and hinterlands. The Crown, which sacked the EIC and took charge in 1858, continued expanding the railways (and education, and posts and telegraphs), making political mobilisation across distances possible. Not to be forgotten is the emergence of railways as an employer of vast numbers, thereby creating an organised labour force, admittedly at lower levels, resulting in frustrations, aspirations, and collective bargaining through trade unions, one of several entry points to public life for political leaders, and reservoirs for mass mobilisation. Although their demands were to do with working conditions these also gave, as G.D. Khosla characterises in his History of the Indian Railways, 'expression to the national upsurge' against an exploitative system catering to a foreign power. The period was also marked by several strikes not restricted to the railways nor fully connected to but alongside the Non-cooperation movement launched by Indian National Congress (INC). For Gandhiji, trains were the mode of travel through which he touched popular hearts and minds at a deep political and empathetic level through his journeys across the country in Third Class, thereby instilling an Indian identity. His explorations also exposed him first hand to specific conditions of hardship, such as those suffered by the indigo farmers in Champaran in Bihar, and the general poverty of India's commoners eking out subsistence lives. It was also during one such visit to Madurai (Madras Presidency, now Tamil Nadu) that he reportedly discarded the shirt as an attire, moved by the plight of the peasantry toiling in fields in loincloth and struggling for existence. The instrumentality of the railways as a medium of protest came in the form of both direct violent action and non-violent defiance. To the former category belonged the sabotaging of infrastructure — attempted derailments of trains carrying colonial rulers, tampering with tracks and permanent ways, and other acts of disruption. Defiance came in the form of ticketless travel, and meetings and other forms of protests at railway stations. Trains were also targets of armed attacks by extremists. On August 9, 1925, revolutionaries from the Hindustan Republican Association robbed a train as it was approaching its destination, Lucknow. A report of the Intelligence Bureau, Terrorism in India, 1917-1936, gives this account of the Kakori Train Robbery on August 9, 1925, edited for brevity: 'Having been successful in [earlier] crimes, the party aimed at bigger game…professional dacoits were enlisted, and a large party near Kakori ambushed a train, which three other members halted at the appointed place by pulling the chain. The guard was overpowered, the passengers were warned not to leave the train, and one passenger who alighted was promptly shot dead. A safe containing the earnings of various stations up the line was removed, and was later found broken open and rifled, the total loss being over Rs. 4,000.' Media reports that marked the centenary of this daring act placed the stolen booty at Rs. 8,000. An Avadh/Lucknow delicacy, the Kakori kebab, writes Chitrita Banerji in Eating India: Exploring a nation's cuisine, is supposed to commemorate this robbery. Railway platforms became places of whistle-stop darshans for nationalist leaders, in particular Mahatma Gandhi, as he traversed the country, again, on Third Class, except when he was unwell. The Father of the Nation was given rousing receptions at train stations, which would be sites of meeting and interacting with the masses. These wayside halts also enabled him to get a pulse of the people on important issues, for instance, Mohammed Ali Jinnah's demand for Pakistan. Stations also had a monetary dimension. While they served as venues for handing over purses comprising collections made at public meetings, they were also theatres where a financial battle of wits was played out: Ticketless travel, with the slogan, Mahatma Gandhi ki jai would rent the air as protesters filled in the coaches and set off on their travels. Financing the railways was yet another issue. As Christian Wolmar, author of Railways & the Raj: How the age of steam transformed India, points out, the matter of who paid for the railways 'aroused much anger among Indian nationalists, who saw them as unnecessary and serving to entrench British rule'. For its part, the INC's position on the railways was that of recognising its contribution but opposing how it was run, and, importantly, for whom. In its early petitioning phase, it saw the railways as an asset bestowed upon the country. However, as the nature of the party evolved to becoming a flag-bearer of freedom, it was critical of its exclusivist operations and expropriatory outcomes and called for greater inclusivity. When it launched the Quit India movement as 'the final struggle' (History of the Indian National Congress, Volume II), the railways, along with other state machinery, such as posts and telegraphs, and the police, were the target of protestors. These transcended non-violent means such as strikes and stoppages. 'There was wide-spread destruction of the property of the Railways and Posts and Telegraphs. One hundred and four railway stations were attacked and damaged, 15 being burnt down; 16 derailments were caused; about 100 instances of sabotage to railway tracks were reported,' read the administration report of the United Provinces (later Uttar Pradesh) for 1942. Giving leaders national reach Unsurprisingly, it was at a railway station, or thereabouts, that Gandhiji and his protégé-to-become, Jawaharlal Nehru, met at 'a spacious pavilion, erected opposite to the Lucknow Junction Station', the venue for the the 31st session of the INC. An inscription erected at Lucknow Charbagh Railway Station mentions Gandhiji's participation between December 26 and 30, 1916, adding, 'He met Jawaharlal Nehru for the first time here.' The two revisited the venue in 1936, for the 49th session presided over by Nehru. The railways were influential in taking the messages of not only Gandhi and Nehru but also of those from geographical extremes to audiences far beyond their local spheres of influence, giving them national reach. To name just three: Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan in the Northwest Frontier Province, who was honoured with the Bharat Ratna in 1987, Gopinath Bordoloi (who would become Assam's first Chief Minister, Bharat Ratna, 1999), C. Rajagopalachari (Madras Presidency, later the last Governor-General of India, and the first recipient of the Bharat Ratna in 1954). When the EIC planned 'modernising India', albeit for its own gains, it set in forces that would flag off colonialism's return journey: English education (1835), post & telegraphs (1852), and the railways (1853). In about a century, a potent mix was created; ready to be harvested by leaders of all hues yearning for India's freedom. The tumultuous years and the resultant transfer of power 'at the stroke of the midnight hour' on August 15, 1947, were the historic consequences and the final outcome for which Lords Dalhousie and Bentinck and their successors did not sign up.
