Latest news with #ConstitutionBench
India Today
10 hours ago
- Politics
- India Today
Assam to skip tribunals, use 1950 law to deport illegal immigrants: Himanta Sarma
Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma on Saturday announced that the state will no longer be required to rely on Foreigners Tribunals (FTs) to identify and deport illegal immigrants, invoking a 1950 law to expedite the to reporters in Nalbari district, Sarma said the state government plans to act under the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Order, 1950, which remains legally valid and empowers district commissioners to issue immediate expulsion Supreme Court, during the hearing of the Clause 6A matter under a Constitution Bench, clearly observed that Assam does not always need to go through the judiciary to identify and deport foreigners," the Chief Minister said. "There is an existing law — the Immigrants Expulsion Order — which permits district authorities to act directly. We were unaware of this until recently, as our lawyers had not flagged it. But we will now act on it," he BJP leader also pointed out that many pushbacks had already taken place, but in cases pending before the courts, the state had refrained from acting. "The numbers are increasing, and they will continue to rise if we don't act. From now on, when someone is identified as a foreigner, and the case is not already in court, we won't wait — we will push them back. And if needed, we will do it repeatedly," he acknowledged that the NRC (National Register of Citizens) exercise had slowed down the state's efforts in identifying and deporting undocumented migrants. With the Supreme Court's recent observations and the rediscovery of the 1950 order, he said the government is preparing to resume and intensify its currently operates 100 Foreigners Tribunals, first set up in 2005, to adjudicate the citizenship of people flagged by the Assam Police's Border Wing. These tribunals have long been the primary mechanism for determining citizenship status, particularly of those suspected to be Bangladeshi nationals residing illegally in the Chief Minister clarified that the new approach would not interfere with ongoing legal proceedings but would apply in cases where no judicial process is currently Watch
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
11 hours ago
- Politics
- First Post
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.
Business Recorder
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Lawyer tells SC there is disconnect between SC Rules and SC Act
ISLAMABAD: The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court was told that there is a disconnect between the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, and Section 2 (a) of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 and Article 191A of the Constitution. An 11-member Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, on Wednesday, heard the review petitions of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples' Party (PPP) and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). Makhdoom Ali Khan, representing some MNAs, who were elected on reserved seats, but due to Supreme Court's order removed, said till the time new rules are framed the judges have to follow the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. However, he told the bench that there is disconnect between the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, and Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 and Article 191A of the Constitution. It would be considered that the review petitions are being heard by a 13-member bench, though on the first day of hearing after preliminary arguments the two judges had dismissed the petitions and opted not to sit in the bench, adding the Court order was signed by all the 13 judges. He contended that on May 6 when the case was heard no objection was raised by any lawyer on the constitution of the bench. All the 13 members of the bench heard the case, and 11 judges issued notices to the respondents, while two judges declined. Makhdoom said the review petitions have been filed against the majority (eight judges) judgment, but the Court order was signed by all the 13 members. He said suppose tomorrow five more judges take a stance that the petitions are non-maintainable then votes of two judges will be counted and included with five judges' decision, and the Court order would by 7 to 6, but will be signed by all the 13 judges. Justice Mazhar said it was argued by the respondent's counsel that though the two judges have dismissed the review petitions, they should not be excluded from the bench. Makhdoom said if the request of the other side is accepted it will be contrary to the law laid down in the judgments of Islamabad High Court Bar Association and the Panama cases. He said the two judges have decided the merit of the case; therefore, now what they will say as already explicitly have expressed their opinion, adding there is no provision of second review. 'My task is to persuade the remaining judges and not two who have recused themselves,' he said. Justice Amin again said that they have not excluded them, but as per their wish the bench was reconstituted. Earlier, Hamid Khan, representing Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC), argued on live-streaming of the proceeding of review petitions, saying the original case was live-telecast on all TV channels, and the entire nation benefited from it. Justice Mazhar stated that the proceedings were shown live as a pilot project, as at that time Full Court in administrative side had given its approval. He said after the 26th Amendment condition has been imposed in Article 191A for framing of rules, adding unless the draft rules are approved by the Full Court, this cannot happen. Hamid Khan then argued that till the decision on petitions against 26th Amendment, the reserved seats should be adjourned. The case is adjourned until today (Thursday). Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
India Today
15-05-2025
- Politics
- India Today
Electoral Bonds, bulldozer justice among key verdicts by Chief Justice BR Gavai
Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai was on Wednesday sworn in as the 52nd Chief Justice of India (CJI), becoming the first Buddhist and only the second judge from the Scheduled Castes to hold the office. His elevation is both historic and symbolic, representing the values of inclusivity and constitutional morality that the judiciary 52nd Chief Justice, BR Gavai, has previously authored more than 200 judgments during his tenure as a Judge of the Supreme Court. He has also been part of several Constitution benches. As the incumbent Chief Justice with a declared objective of "upholding socioeconomic justice", he is also expected to take up several pending VERDICTS BY JUSTICE BR GAVAI:BULLDOZER JUSTICE: In November 2024, a Division Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan condemned the "bulldozer actions" by various states and held that the properties/houses of the accused in any case, cannot be demolished only on the grounds that they are accused or convicted for a crime. The Court laid down stringent norms to curb these bulldozer LAYER AND SUB-CLASSIFICATION IN SC/STs: In the state of Punjab vs Davinder Singh case, the verdict of 2024 a seven-judge Constitution Bench also comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma, by a 6-1 majority, held that subclassification of Scheduled Castes among reserved categories is permissible for granting separate quotas for more backwards within the SC Gavai, in his separate opinion, stated that nearly 75 years have elapsed from the day on which the Constitution was brought into State must evolve a policy for identifying the creamy layer even from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to exclude them from the benefit of affirmative action. In my view, only this and this alone can achieve the real equality as enshrined under the Constitution," he opinion, coming from a Dalit Judge, was widely discussed across the country, with both appreciation and criticism from SC/ST BONDS: Justice Gavai was also part of the Constitution Bench that struck down the 2018 Electoral Bonds Scheme. In February 2024, the Court held that the scheme infringed upon the citizens' right to information and compromised transparency in public Court also directed that the sale of electoral bonds be stopped with immediate effect. The State Bank of India was directed to submit details of the Electoral Bonds purchased from April 12, 2019 till the date of the verdict, to the Election TO MANISH SISODIA: While granting interim bail to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Manish Sisodia in 2024 in both the CBI and ED in connection with the Delhi Excise scam case, the Bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan raised concerns about the prolonged period of incarceration suffered by consideration of various earlier pronouncements, the Court emphasised that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right within the broad scope of Article 21 of the In 2023, Justice Gavai authored the majority opinion upholding the Centre's 2016 demonetisation scheme. The five-judge Constitution bench, in a majority verdict, held that demonetisation was proportionate to the Union's stated objectives and was implemented in a reasonable 370 ABROGATION: Justice Gavai was a member of the five-judge bench that unanimously upheld the abrogation of Article 370 in 2023, which revoked the special status of Jammu and Kashmir. It held that J&K did not retain its sovereignty after the proclamation made by Yuvraj Karan Singh in SURNAME DEFAMATION CASE: The three-judge bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, PS Narasimha and Sanjay Kumar, in the Rahul Gandhi vs Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi case, in 2023, issued a stay on the Congress leader's conviction while hearing his appeal against the Gujarat High court court held that denial of stay would not only affect the right of the appellant to continue in public life but also affect the right of the electorate, who elected him, to represent their constituency. Further, it held that no reason was given by the Trial Court for imposing the maximum TO CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST TEESTA SETALVAD: A three-judge bench of Justices BR Gavai, AS Bopanna and Dipankar Datta, in 2023, granted regular bail to civil rights activist Teesta Atul Setalvad in a case of alleged fabricating evidence in a case arising out of the 2002 Godhra 370 INTERNET BAN IN J&K: A 3-judge bench comprising Justices NV Ramana, R Subhash Reddy and BR Gavai, in Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India verdict of 2020, directed the Jammu-Kashmir administration to review all orders imposing telecom and internet curbs within one week and put them in public domain. The bench also held that such curbs had to be reasonable and not InMust Watch
United News of India
14-05-2025
- Politics
- United News of India
Justice B R Gavai sworn-in as 52nd Chief Justice of India
New Delhi, May 14 (UNI) In a significant moment for India's judiciary, Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai was sworn in as the 52nd Chief Justice of India (CJI) on Wednesday. The oath of office was administered by President Droupadi Murmu at Rashtrapati Bhavan. Justice Gavai succeeds Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, who demitted office on May 13. Justice Gavai's elevation to the highest judicial post is historic on two fronts: he becomes the first Chief Justice of India from the Buddhist community, and only the second CJI from the Scheduled Caste category after Justice K G Balakrishnan, who held the post from 2007 to 2010. Justice Gavai is a Jurist known for his bold judgments. He has been associated with several landmark judgments during his tenure on the bench. Notably, he authored the strong ruling against the practice of "bulldozer justice", the unlawful demolition of properties of accused persons. The Court declared such actions by state authorities as a violation of the rule of law and emphasized that only judicial orders, not executive whims, can authorize demolition. He also granted bail to political figures, including Manish Sisodia and K Kavitha in the Delhi liquor policy case, citing undue delay in trial and violation of the constitutional right to speedy justice. In another prominent ruling, the bench, led by Justice Gavai, held that the arrest of NewsClick Editor Prabir Purkayastha under UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act) was illegal, as the grounds of arrest had not been supplied in writing, a direct violation of legal norms. Pushing the boundaries of equality jurisprudence, Justice Gavai has played a pivotal role in shaping constitutional discourse around social justice. He was part of the Constitution Bench in the State of Punjab versus Davinder Singh case, where the Court upheld sub-classification within Scheduled Castes as constitutionally permissible. In a concurring opinion, he advocated for the application of the creamy layer principle to SCs to ensure that the most disadvantaged truly benefit from reservations. In the Vanniyar Quota case, he was part of the bench that struck down internal reservations for lack of supporting data. He also contributed to clarifying the prospective application of the M Nagaraj judgment regarding SC/ST promotions. Justice Gavai has been part of several landmark Constitution Bench decisions, including: Sabarimala Review Reference (2020): Upheld the maintainability of larger issues raised during the review petitions. Demonetisation (2023): Authored the majority opinion upholding the 2016 demonetisation, stating it met constitutional tests. Article 370 (2023): Joined the majority in upholding the abrogation of Jammu & Kashmir's special status. Electoral Bonds (2024): Part of the bench that struck down the Electoral Bond Scheme as unconstitutional, reinforcing voters' right to information. Ministerial Speech Liability (2023): Held that ministers' statements can lead to constitutional torts if they incite administrative harm. Justice Gavai's other noteworthy judgments are - Anuradha Bhasin Case (2020): Affirmed that internet access is essential for exercising freedom of speech and trade under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g). SC/ST Act Review (2019): Part of the bench that reversed the dilution of arrest provisions under the SC/ST Act. Contempt Case against Prashant Bhushan (2020): Justice Gavai was part of the bench that held the advocate guilty of contempt for comments on the judiciary. As Chief Justice, one of the first high-profile matters Justice Gavai will preside over is the challenge to the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act and the Waqf Act, 1995, scheduled for hearing on May 15, 2025. Justice Gavai's elevation marks not only a personal milestone but also a significant moment in the journey toward social inclusivity and progressive jurisprudence in India's highest court.
