No Place Like Home: Neither Here, Nor There
New Delhi: Following the Supreme Court's refusal on Thursday to stay the deportation of illegal Rohingya migrants on the ground that the right to reside in India was reserved for citizens, there is fear and uncertainty in Delhi's Rohingya settlements.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
In Kalindi Kunj and Shram Vihar, where many of the migrants have lived for over a decade, families reported sudden detentions and untraceable deportations.At these settlements, TOI sensed a tense stillness in the air. The approach to the Kalindi Kunj and Shram Vihar habitations winds through a dusty, broken trail strewn with rubble. Around a dozen jhuggis, assembled with tarpaulin, wooden planks and rusted metal, are clustered there, most of them with no electricity or water. They have curtains for doors, no windows, not even fans to keep the Delhi heat at bay."This is where we rebuilt our lives," said a 25-year-old who fled Myanmar in 2012 with his wife. "We have three children now. They go to school here. When we first arrived, we didn't know how to survive. We built these shacks with our own hands. We are grateful to India for allowing us to stay and we followed all UNHCR steps. People tell us we deserve electricity, water and toilets, but most of us are just thankful to have even these shanties. Now, even this life is under threat."On May 6, a 26-year-old Rohingya said his entire family was torn apart. "I was at a govt hospital with my wife, who was undergoing surgery. My parents were at home taking care of our children. Later that day, my mother, father, two brothers and my sister-in-law were picked up and taken to the police station. Then they were deported," he said in a choking voice. "We don't know where they are now. We were never given a chance to make other arrangements. UNHCR, which once assured us of safety, is keeping silent."His story is not unique. Another shared how his niece's wedding had been planned for May 20. "Everything was ready, clothes, jewellery and other arrangements," he said. "Then, suddenly, my niece and her mother, who sells vegetables in the slums, were called to the police station and later deported after biometric verification. We weren't given a chance to prepare to leave or say goodbye. We just hope they are safe and are being treated with dignity." The Rohingyas claim that around 40 individuals have been deported recently from across the city.Some families have lived in India 2012; others came following the 2017 upheaval in Myanmar. While their legal status is long and complex, many said they believed their presence in India was permitted on humanitarian grounds. On Thursday in the Supreme Court, the solicitor general of India assured the bench that due process would be followed with regard to the Rohingya deportation, reiterating that India did not recognise them as refugees because the country was not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention. A police officer claimed that due process was followed with respect to the deportations. There is great anxiety among the community members about being sent back to the very violence they once fled. A 24-year-old woman sat at her jhuggi in Kalindi Kunj, her eyes swollen and red as she cried while nursing her 11-month-old baby. Struggling to speak, she said, "I learned how to sew after coming to Delhi. My husband is a labourer, and we barely make a living. But at least we felt safe here. Back in Myanmar, we know what could happen to young women and their children. Even going without water for three days here feels better than being deported." A 30-year-old woman said, "We believed in the system. We never meant to overstay here or defy the law." Pointing at the hand-painted drawings on the shack walls, she continued, "My 12-year-old daughter made these at school. All I want is a better future for her. You can send us back, but please don't send our children with us. We don't know what will happen to them. We came because we feared for our lives. We never claimed citizenship, only refuge. We only hope for clarity, safety and a little time."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
23 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Salwa Judum case: Legislative workaround and limits of contempt power
The doctrine of separation of powers must always be acknowledged in a constitutional democracy, the Supreme Court said in its May 15 order ruling that any law made by Parliament or state legislatures cannot be held to be in contempt of court. The decision by a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma came while dismissing a 2012 contempt petition filed by sociologist Nandini Sundar and others against the Chhattisgarh government for enacting the Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011, alleging the law violated an earlier SC order. The bench held that the law did not amount to contempt of the SC's 2011 landmark judgment that disbanded the state government-backed Salwa Judum, terming it unconstitutional. Salwa Judum was a government-backed militia formed in Chhattisgarh in 2005, which used armed tribal civilians to combat Maoist violence. The contempt plea claimed that the Chhattisgarh government failed to comply with the 2011 order to stop open backing of vigilante groups like the Salwa Judum, and instead went ahead and armed tribal youths in the fight against Maoists. It said there had been a clear contempt of the SC order when the state government passed the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011, which legalised arming tribals in the form of Special Police Officers (SPOs) in the war against Maoists. The petitioners further submitted that instead of disarming SPOs, which was a key constituent of the SC's 2011 order, the Chhattisgarh government legalised the practice of arming them. They also argued that the victims of the Salwa Judum movement had not been adequately compensated. In the latest ruling of May 15, the Supreme Court said the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011 does not constitute a contempt of court per se, and that the balance between sovereign functionaries must always be delicately maintained. 'Every State Legislature has plenary powers to pass an enactment and so long as the said enactment has not been declared to be ultra vires the Constitution or, in any way, null and void by a Constitutional Court, the said enactment would have the force of law," the bench said. If any party wants that the legislation be struck down for being unconstitutional, the legal remedies would have to be presented before an appropriate constitutional court, the bench noted.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Assam to use 75-yr-old law to push back illegal migrants
Guwahati: Assam govt is preparing to use a 75-year-old previously overlooked law to pushback illegal migrants from the state without any judicial intervention immediately after their identification. CM Himanta Biswa Sarma on Saturday said a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court , while hearing a case on Section 6A of the Citizenship Act (October, 2024), had said there is no legal requirement for the Assam govt to always approach the judiciary to identify foreigners and "we are examining this". "There is an old law called the Immigrants Expulsion Order (1950), and during 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," he added. "For whatever reason, our lawyers had not informed us about this, and we weren't aware of it either," Himanta added. He said in the past few days, the entire matter has come to light and the state govt will now discuss it seriously. "The process of identifying foreigners, which had paused due to NRC-related matters, will now be sped up a bit. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch CFD với công nghệ và tốc độ tốt hơn IC Markets Đăng ký Undo This time, if someone is identified as a foreigner and we don't send them to a tribunal. We will straightway push them back. Preparations for this have been ongoing over the last few days," he said. He underlined that those who have moved courts will not be pushed back for now. The Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 (IEAA) empowers the central govt to order expulsion of any person or class of persons who have come into Assam from outside India, either before or after the commencement of this Act, and whose stay in Assam is detrimental to the interests of the general public of India or any Scheduled Tribe in Assam. Sarma was referring to the five-member Constitution Bench headed by then chief justice DY Chandrachud on October 17, 2024 which upheld the validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act in a 4:1 majority with Justice JB Pardiwala giving the sole dissenting opinion. Justices Surya Kant, MM Sundresh and Manoj Misra in their joint order said the provisions of the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 "shall be effectively employed for the purpose of identification of illegal immigrants." They noted that the IEAA grants "Central Government the power to direct the removal of immigrants who are detrimental to the interests of India." "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 as to why such statutory detection shall also not be given effect to, for the purposes of 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 the purpose of detection and deportation of foreigners," the judges noted in their order. WHAT IS IEAA Enacted even before the immigrants from West and East Pakistan were considered foreigners under Foreigners Act The Statement of Objects and Reasons states the Act was enacted to deal with the large scale immigration of migrants from East Bengal to Assam Other statutory enactments to address the influx of immigrants in Assam Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, the Foreigners Act, 1946, the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 and the Passport Act, 1967. Guwahati: Assam govt is preparing to use a 75-year-old previously overlooked law to pushback illegal migrants from the state without any judicial intervention immediately after their identification. CM Himanta Biswa Sarma on Saturday said a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, while hearing a case on Section 6A of the Citizenship Act (October, 2024), had said there is no legal requirement for the Assam govt to always approach the judiciary to identify foreigners and "we are examining this". "There is an old law called the Immigrants Expulsion Order (1950), and during 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," he added. "For whatever reason, our lawyers had not informed us about this, and we weren't aware of it either," Himanta added. He said in the past few days, the entire matter has come to light and the state govt will now discuss it seriously. "The process of identifying foreigners, which had paused due to NRC-related matters, will now be sped up a bit. This time, if someone is identified as a foreigner and we don't send them to a tribunal. We will straightway push them back. Preparations for this have been ongoing over the last few days," he said. He underlined that those who have moved courts will not be pushed back for now. The Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 (IEAA) empowers the central govt to order expulsion of any person or class of persons who have come into Assam from outside India, either before or after the commencement of this Act, and whose stay in Assam is detrimental to the interests of the general public of India or any Scheduled Tribe in Assam. Sarma was referring to the five-member Constitution Bench headed by then chief justice DY Chandrachud on October 17, 2024 which upheld the validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act in a 4:1 majority with Justice JB Pardiwala giving the sole dissenting opinion. Justices Surya Kant, MM Sundresh and Manoj Misra in their joint order said the provisions of the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 "shall be effectively employed for the purpose of identification of illegal immigrants." They noted that the IEAA grants "Central Government the power to direct the removal of immigrants who are detrimental to the interests of India." "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 as to why such statutory detection shall also not be given effect to, for the purposes of 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 the purpose of detection and deportation of foreigners," the judges noted in their order. WHAT IS IEAA Enacted even before the immigrants from West and East Pakistan were considered foreigners under Foreigners Act The Statement of Objects and Reasons states the Act was enacted to deal with the large scale immigration of migrants from East Bengal to Assam Other statutory enactments to address the influx of immigrants in Assam Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, the Foreigners Act, 1946, the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 and the Passport Act, 1967.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
FIR now must if plaint clearly discloses cognizable offence
Mumbai: The State Police Complaints Authority (SPCA) on Thursday directed all police stations and chowkeys in the state via the Director General of Police, Maharashtra, that the registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the criminal procedure code if the information disclosed to the police by the victim at the first instance clearly shows commission of a cognizable offence, wherein no preliminary inquiry is permissible. "If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence, but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered," the authority has stated in its order citing similar orders from the Supreme Court in the past. The order came upon a case wherein a central government employee had approached Satara police over a serious physical abusive assault by his senior in th office. However, despite it being a cognizable offence upfront, and that being incumbent upon the police to register an FIR, the local police did not follow the law, and on the contrary, registered an NC. The SCPCA has not only directed the DG to file compliance of the order within next two weeks, but also directed the home department to initiate disciplinary or legal actions against the four police officials who did not file FIR. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further, the authority stated further. "Accordingly, it was mandatory that preliminary inquiry should be made time-bound and in any case, it should not exceed fifteen days generally, and in exceptional cases by giving adequate reasons, six weeks time is provided. The fact of such delay and causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry," stated the copy of the order obtained by TOI. The order was issued by the three-member authority led by retired Justice Shrihari Davare as chairperson along with Umakant Mitkar and Vijvay Satbir Singh as the members. "The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering an offence if a cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence," the order stated further pointing out that the scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.
