&w=3840&q=100)
Assam govt to invoke a forgotten law to identify and expel illegal migrants
The government of Assam is all set to revive a 75-year-old law that enables the state authorities to push back illegal immigrants upon identification without the need to approach the judiciary every time read more
The Assam government is working on reviving the use of a 75-year-old previously overlooked law in a bid to push back illegal immigrants from the state. As per the law, the state will be able to remove illegal migrants without any form of judicial intervention and immediately after their identification.
On Saturday, Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma noted that a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, while hearing a case on Section 6A of the Citizenship Act (October 2024), had maintained that there is no legal requirement for the Assam government to always approach the judiciary in regards to illegal immigrants, The Times of India reported.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
'There is an old law called the Immigrants Expulsion Order (1950), and during a hearing on Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court said this Act is still valid. Under its provisions, even a district commissioner can issue an order for immediate pushback of illegal immigrants,' the Assam CM said on Saturday.
'For whatever reason, our lawyers had not informed us about this, and we weren't aware of it either,' Sarma added. He revealed that in the past few days, the entire matter has come to light, and the state government will now discuss it seriously.
The process of identifying foreigners will be sped up: Assam CM
The Assam CM noted that the process of identifying illegal immigrants and pushing them back from the state will be sped up now that the government is aware of the law. 'The process of identifying foreigners, which had paused due to NRC-related matters , will now be sped up a bit,' he said.
'This time, if someone is identified as a foreigner, we don't send them to a tribunal. We will straightaway push them back. Preparations for this have been ongoing over the last few days,' he added. Sarma also maintained that those who have moved courts will not be pushed back for now.
In his statement, Sarma was referring to the five-member Constitution Bench headed by then Chief Justice DY Chandrachud . On October 17, 2024, the bench upheld the validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act in a 4:1 majority, with Justice JB Pardiwala giving the sole dissenting opinion.
In their joint order, Justices Surya Kant, MM Sundresh and Manoj Misra said that the provisions of the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950, 'shall be effectively employed for identification of illegal immigrants.'
About the 1950 law
The Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 (IEAA) empowers the central government to order the expulsion of any person or class of persons who came into Assam from outside India, either before or after the commencement of the Act. The act can be implemented to deal with someone who stays in Assam and is detrimental to the interests of the general public of India or any Scheduled Tribe in Assam.
The constitutional bench also noted that the IEAA granted 'the Central Government the power to direct the removal of immigrants who are detrimental to the interests of India.'
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
'If there is any other piece of legislation, such as the IEAA, under which the status of an immigrant can be determined, we see no reason why such statutory detection shall not also be given effect to, for deportation. We thus hold that the provisions of IEAA shall also be read into Section 6A and be applied along with the Foreigners Act, 1946, for detection and deportation of foreigners,' the judges stated in their order.
It is pertinent to note that the law was enacted even before the immigrants from West and East Pakistan were considered foreigners under the Foreigners Act . According to the Statement of Objects and Reasons, the Act was enacted to deal with the large-scale immigration of migrants from East Bengal to Assam.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
24 minutes ago
- Time of India
When Rajinikanth chose reconciliation over rhetoric with Karnataka during the 2008 'Kuselan' controversy
In 2008, ahead of the release of his film 'Kuselan,' Superstar found himself at the center of a storm over the long-standing between and . During a Tamil film industry protest in Chennai demanding the implementation of the Supreme Court's order on the water issue, Rajinikanth made strong remarks urging the Karnataka government to release water. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now His words, though echoing the sentiments of Tamil Nadu, sparked a sharp backlash in Karnataka. A ban looms over the film Pro-Kannada groups responded swiftly, calling for a ban on the release of 'Kuselan' across Karnataka. The situation escalated, and distributors in the state began to pull back, fearing violence and loss. Realizing the gravity of the situation and how it could impact his fans and the film industry, Rajinikanth decided to take a conciliatory path. He issued a public apology to the people and government of Karnataka, stating that he did not intend to hurt anyone's sentiments. The superstar steps back for peace In a televised message, Rajinikanth said, 'If my words have hurt the people of Karnataka, I sincerely apologize.' His heartfelt gesture was seen as a move to diffuse tensions and restore peace. The apology was widely circulated and helped ease the pressure around the film's release. Following this, 'Kuselan' was allowed to be released in Karnataka, although with limited screening due to lingering protests. A moment that defined the man This incident remains a key moment in Rajinikanth's political and public image, portraying him as a statesman-like figure who prioritized harmony over confrontation. His balanced response was appreciated by many, even as some in Tamil Nadu debated the need for an apology. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Nonetheless, Rajinikanth's 2008 move is still recalled today as a rare instance of a megastar navigating the political sensitivities between two states with restraint and maturity. This incident is now cited in contrast to current controversies, like 's 'Thug Life' and the Kannada language row, where no apology was issued. Rajinikanth's gesture is viewed as a diplomatic move that helped protect his film's release and maintain public goodwill.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Cash discovery row: Resignation only option before Justice Varma to avoid removal by Parliament
Resignation is the only option before Justice Yashwant Varma to avoid impeachment by Parliament as the government pushes for bringing a motion to remove the Allahabad High Court judge over alleged corruption. Officials aware of the procedure to appoint and remove Supreme Court and high court judges pointed out that while defending his case before lawmakers in any of the House, Justice Varma can announce that he is quitting and his verbal statement will be considered as his resignation. Should he decide to resign, he will get pension and other benefits entitled to a retired HC judge. But if he is removed by Parliament, he will be deprived of pension and other benefits, they noted. According to Article 217 of the Constitution, a high court judge "may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office." A judge's resignation does not require any approval. A simple resignation letter is sufficient. A judge may give a prospective date to step down. In such cases, the judge can withdraw the resignation before the date he or she has mentioned as the last day in office. Removal by Parliament is the other way a judge can vacate office. Then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna had written to the president and the prime minister to remove Justice Varma, mired in the cash discovery row. Justice Khanna's report was based on the findings of a three-judge in house panel which investigated the case. Justice Khanna had prodded Varma to resign but he had refused, sources had earlier said. A motion could be brought in either of the two Houses of Parliament. In the Rajya Sabha, at least 50 members have to sign the motion. In Lok sabha, 100 members have to support it. According to the Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968, once a motion to remove a judge is admitted in any of the Houses, the speaker or the chairman, as the case may be, will constitute a three-member committee to investigate the grounds on which the removal (or, in popular term, impeachment) has been sought. The committee consists of the chief justice of India (CJI) or a Supreme Court judge, the chief justice of one of the 25 high courts and a " distinguished jurist". Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju had last week said the present case is "slightly different" as an in-house committee formed by then CJI Khanna has already submitted its report. "So what is to be done in this matter, we will take a call," he said. The minister said the process has to be followed, but how to "integrate the inquiry already conducted" needs to be decided. "As per the rule, a committee has to be constituted and then the committee has to submit a report and the report will be tabled in the House and discussions will start to impeach. Here, a committee has already been constituted, not by Parliament. But it cannot be brushed aside" as it was constituted by the CJI, he said. Responding to questions that a committee has to be mandatorily formed under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, Rijiju said the speaker will take a decision in this regard. He said reconciling the report of the in-house panel and the one under law is a "secondary matter". The primary objective is to bring the impeachment motion. Monsoon session begins July 21 and ends August 12. A fire incident at Justice Varma's residence in the national capital in March, when he was a judge at the Delhi High Court, had led to the discovery of several burnt sacks of cash at the outhouse. Though the judge claimed ignorance about the cash, the Supreme Court-appointed committee indicted him after speaking to a number of witnesses and recording his statement. The apex court has since transferred him to his parent high court, the Allahabad High Court, where he has not been assigned any judicial work. Supreme Court judge V Ramaswami and Calcutta HC judge Soumitra Sen had earlier faced impeachment proceedings but they resigned. Justice Varma's removal proceedings will be taken up in the upcoming Monsoon session of Parliament. This will be the first ever impeachment proceeding to be taken up in the new Parliament building.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Cash haul row: Justice Yashwant Varma left with only one option - how can he avoid impeachment?
File photo: Justice Yashwant Varma (Picture credit: ANI) NEW DELHI: Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court faces the prospect of impeachment in the upcoming Monsoon session of Parliament after being indicted in a high-profile corruption case. According to officials cited by news agency PTI, resignation remains his only option to avoid a Parliamentary motion for removal, which, if passed, would strip him of pension and retirement benefits. Justice Varma came under scrutiny after a fire at his Delhi residence in March led to the discovery of several burnt sacks of unaccounted cash in the outhouse. Though he denied knowledge of the money, a Supreme Court-appointed in-house panel, led by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, found him culpable after recording witness statements and Varma's own deposition. Based on this report, Justice Khanna urged the President and Prime Minister to initiate his removal, PTI reported. As per Article 217 of the Constitution, a High Court judge may resign by writing to the President. The resignation becomes valid without requiring formal acceptance. If a judge resigns, they retain post-retirement entitlements. However, if removed by Parliament, they lose all such benefits. In Parliament, a motion for removal must be supported by at least 50 Rajya Sabha or 100 Lok Sabha members. Once admitted, the Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968 mandates a fresh three-member committee, including a Supreme Court judge, a High Court chief justice, and a distinguished jurist, to investigate the charges. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like This Device Made My Power Bill Drop Overnight elecTrick - Save upto 80% on Power Bill Pre-Order Undo However, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju pointed out that the case is 'slightly different' because an in-house committee has already concluded its probe. 'It cannot be brushed aside,' Rijiju was quoted as saying by PTI, adding that reconciling the existing report with the statutory inquiry process will be a matter for the Speaker or Chairman to decide. Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar, while meeting members of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association, expressed dismay over the lack of a criminal investigation into the matter. 'A very painful incident happened... There was a cash haul, obviously tainted, unaccounted and illegal,' he said. Dhankhar criticised the judiciary's internal mechanism for shielding its members from FIRs, saying, 'Unless permission is accorded by a functionary at the highest level in the judiciary, an FIR can't be registered.' Justice Varma has since been transferred to the Allahabad High Court, where he has not been allotted any judicial duties. Rijiju has begun consultations with political parties to build consensus on the motion, which could be the first impeachment to be taken up in the new Parliament building. The Monsoon session of Parliament is scheduled from July 21 to August 12.
