Latest news with #SCSharma
Indian Express
03-06-2025
- General
- Indian Express
‘SC said declared foreigners should be deported, Assam govt has taken it to mean something very different and for push backs': Petitioner
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea challenging the Assam government's move to 'push back' alleged illegal immigrants and those declared foreigners by the state's Foreigners' Tribunals (FTs) into Bangladesh. A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and S C Sharma instead asked the petitioner, the All BTC Minority Students' Union (ABMSU), a social organisation based in the Bodoland Territorial region, to approach the Gauhati High Court. The Indian Express spoke to ABMSU president Taison Hussain on their attempt to challenge the Assam government's steps. Excerpts: * Why did you approach the Supreme Court over the issue? The foreigners' matter has been going on in Assam for a very long time. The FTs function in an arbitrary manner and many of the people declared foreigners are done so ex-parte (proceedings conducted and orders passed in their absence). Then last month we started seeing people getting picked up by the police – these people have been out on bail on the Supreme Court's orders, many have approached higher courts to appeal against their FT orders and have stay orders on action against them — and since then, no one knows where they have been taken. When relatives go to the police, the police say they don't know (anything). That means the people are missing. Then two days after all this first started, we started seeing videos of people stuck in the no man's land between Bangladesh and India. When we found out, our organisation demonstrated against this and contacted officers concerned, but we didn't get any positive results. There was a Supreme Court order that declared foreigners in Matia (Assam's dedicated detention camp) should be deported, which the state government has taken to mean something completely different and is now doing 'push backs'. Because of this, we approached the Supreme Court. * In what way do you think the state is acting differently from the Court's directions? The Supreme Court had said that if these people are Bangladeshi citizens and the state knows this, they need to be deported. We have never objected to anyone being deported in a legal manner. But these people were born here. If there is a mistake in their name in some records, if there is some irregularity in age, they are declared foreigners by FTs. Many have approached higher courts and others still have the option to do that. They can't just be picked up. They have not violated their bail ground rules. But they were picked up suddenly at night. We think this is a misinterpretation and violation of what the Supreme Court said. There is a proper procedure for deportation. But here, nothing has been done formally and these people were just pushed into no man's land. No notice was given to them before it was done and, till date, the government has not given an official statement on what exactly is being done. * Is this a new turn in the state's long-standing citizenship issue? At a recent press conference, the CM (Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma) said the process of detecting foreigners by the border police had been stopped for a few years because of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) updation process. Now we think that because the Assembly elections are coming (in 2026), this decades-old issue is being raised again. He (Sarma) has taken steps to deport alleged foreigners to gain political mileage. We support the completion of the NRC exercise, which has been on hold for more than five years now. This is the only solution to the foreigners' issue – not the arbitrary border police and Foreigners' Tribunals – and the only way to put an end to it for good. * Now that the Supreme Court has declined to hear your plea, what will your next step be? The Supreme Court has not said that our case does not have merit. It has said that because there are some individual cases and that this is happening in the state, we should approach the Gauhati High Court. We will file a writ petition in the Gauhati High Court this week.
Indian Express
02-06-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
SC refuses to entertain plea against Assam govt's deportation of Bangladeshis, directs petitioner to move Gauhati HC
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea challenging the Assam Government's move to deport Bangladeshis who have entered the country illegally. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and S C Sharma asked the petitioner, All BTC Minority Students Union (ABMSU), to approach the Gauhati High Court. 'Sixty-nine people are being deported, please go to the Gauhati High Court,' the court said. On February 4, a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan had asked the state to do the needful to deport 63 declared foreigners. The government had then said that it was awaiting confirmation of their nationality. They were subsequently confirmed to be Bangladeshi nationals. The petition alleged that using this order as an excuse, the state 'has reportedly launched a sweeping and indiscriminate drive to detain and deport individuals suspected to be foreigners…' Citing some of the alleged deportations, the plea argued that 'these instances are not isolated, but part of an emerging pattern where individuals are detained and deported without Foreigners Tribunal declarations, nationality verification by the MEA, or even an opportunity to appeal.' 'These instances reflect a growing pattern of deportations conducted by the Assam Police and administrative machinery through informal 'push back' mechanisms, without any judicial oversight or adherence to the safeguards envisaged by the Constitution of India or this court,' ABMSU claimed. In a related development, the court also agreed to take up next week a habeas corpus petition filed by a man who alleged that his mother had been picked up for deportation and since then, her whereabouts are not known. Initially, the bench said it will tag it with a pending plea on illegal immigrants. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, however, urged the court to issue notice, so that the state can reply. 'We don't know. Son doesn't know. Let them say. If she is in Bangladesh, it's another matter.' Sibal contended that the arrest of the petitioner's mother violated norms on arrest laid down by the Supreme Court in the D K Basu case. 'Your Lordships know she has to be produced within 24 hours. She is not produced. Picked up from the house. Directly in violation of the DK Basu judgment. SP goes to the house, picks her up and throws her. How can that be?' the senior counsel submitted. The court issued notice and fixed it for hearing early next week.
Indian Express
27-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
SC questions state for intervening in a dispute between private parties over running temples
The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the Uttar Pradesh government for intervening in what was a dispute between private parties over administration and safety of temples in the Braj region, to seek approval of its plan for redevelopment of the shrine. It was on an intervention application filed by the state in a matter pertaining to such a dispute that the apex court on May 15 approved the state's proposal to use funds from the Banke Bihari Temple in Vrindavan for buying five acres around it for a corridor project. In November 2023, the Allahabad High Court, while clearing the corridor plan, had restrained the state from using temple funds for buying the land. The state challenged this through the intervention application. On Tuesday, a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and SC Sharma sought to know how the state sought to became a party in the proceedings and said that such interventions will lead to breakdown of rule of law. 'Was the state a party to the proceedings? In what capacity has the state entered the dispute? If states start entering into a private dispute between parties it will breakdown of rule of law. You can't hijack the litigation. In a private litigation between two parties, state filing an impleadment application and hijacking it is not permissible,' said the bench. The remarks came as the court was hearing a plea seeking modification of the May 15 order. The court was hearing a plea by Devendra Nath Gooswami who claimed to be 'lineal descendant' of the Banke Bihari temple's founder Swami Hari Das Goswami. He claimed that his family had been managing the shrine's affairs for the last 500 years. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for him said funds worth Rs 300 crore had been given to the state without making us the party. 'How can you by an order in another petition direct that earning of a private temple be handed over to the state,' Sibal wondered. State government counsel said the state had set up a trust to manage the temple and oversee the work on the proposed corridor and that the money would vest with the trust not the government. The bench asked the state's counsel to give a copy of the ordinance regarding the trust and with regard to the trust to the petitioner. It also asked the concerned principal secretary to file an affidavit by July 29. Goswami contended that the proposed 'redevelopment risks altering the essential religious and cultural character of the temple and its surrounding ecosystem, which holds deep historical and devotional significance.'
Indian Express
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
SC nod for UP govt to use Banke Bihari temple funds for corridor project
THE SUPREME Court on Thursday cleared the Uttar Pradesh government's proposal to use funds from the Banke Bihari Temple in Vrindavan for buying five acres around it for a corridor project, emphasising that the land proposed to be purchased 'shall be in the name of the deity/(temple) trust.' In November 2023, the Allahabad High Court, while clearing the corridor plan, had restrained the state from using temple funds for buying the land. The state challenged this through an intervention application filed in a case in which it was hearing a matter related to the administration and safety of temples in the Braj region. Allowing the plea, a bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and S C Sharma said, 'it is in public interest to decide the issue… expeditiously.' Referring to the proposed scheme placed on record by the state of UP for development of the temple, it said, 'upon a perusal of the same and the consequent assessments, it has been ascertained that five acres around the temple is to be acquired and developed by constructing parking lots, accommodation for the devotees, toilets, security check posts and other amenities. As observed by the High Court vide order dated 08.11.2023, the acquisition of land around the temple and the consequent development project is crucial to ensure the safety of the pilgrims.' The court said 'the State of UP has undertaken to incur costs of more than Rs 500 Crores to develop the corridor. However, they propose to utilise the Temple funds for purchasing the land in question; which was denied by the High Court vide order dated 08.11.2023. We permit the State of Uttar Pradesh to implement the Scheme in its entirety.' The ruling said 'the Banke Bihari Ji Trust is having fixed deposits in the name of the Deity/Temple. In the considered opinion of this Court, the State Government is permitted to utilise the amount lying in the fixed deposit to acquire the land proposed. But the land acquired for purposes of development of the temple and corridor shall be in the name of the Deity/Trust.'
Indian Express
15-05-2025
- Indian Express
Rape case: Couple agree to marry, exchange flowers in Supreme Court
The Supreme Court Thursday suspended the the 10-year sentence of a man convicted of rape on false promise of marriage after he and the woman expressed willingness to marry each other. A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and S C Sharma also persuaded the couple to exchange flowers in the court. Advocate Mrinal Gopal Eker, appearing for the state of Madhya Pradesh, said that the court itself arranged the flowers. The SC order said, 'Having regard to the sensitivity of the matter, we directed the parties as well as their parents along with their respective learned counsel and learned standing counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh to appear before us in chamber. They have appeared before us in chamber in the pre-lunch session. We heard them.' 'We passed over the matter so as to enable the parties to have a dialogue and inform the court as to whether they are inclined to get engaged and be married to each other. In the post-lunch session, the matter was again called in the court hall. The petitioner and respondent No.2 have unequivocally stated before us that they are willing to marry each other,' it said. The top court said that the details of marriage will be worked out by their respective parents and hoped that the marriage takes place expeditiously. The convict will return to jail and be produced before the sessions court concerned which will release him on bail, subject to such conditions as it may deem appropriate, the top court said. As per the prosecution, the couple came in contact on Facebook and had physical relations between 2016 and 2021. The woman claimed that he had assured to marry her but backtracked following which he was charged with rape and convicted. On September 5, 2024 , the Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh HC rejected his application under Section 389(1) of the CrPC for suspension of sentence, following which he moved the top court.
