Assam govt to move SC against HC order on 'scam-tainted' officers' reinstatement: Himanta
Guwahati, The Assam government will move the Supreme Court against a Gauhati High Court order, directing it to reinstate 52 officials dismissed in the cash-for-job scam in the Combined Competitive Examination conducted by SC, Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma said on Saturday. Assam govt to move SC against HC order on 'scam-tainted' officers' reinstatement: Himanta
He also termed the high court order "painful" at a time when the state government was ensuring only merit-based recruitments.
The Gauhati High Court had on Friday asked the state government to reinstate 52 of the 57 dismissed civil, police and allied service officials of 2013 and 2014 batch, who were involved in the cash-for-job scam in the Combined Competitive Examination conducted by the Assam Public Service Commission .
The court directed that the dismissed officials, who had completed the probation period, be reinstated within a period of 50 days while allowing the state government to not assign them any duties for the next 30 days and conduct any departmental inquiries if required.
Talking to reporters at Baksa on the sidelines of an International Day of Yoga event, Sarma said, "The judgement by the division bench on the SC matter is painful and has led to disappointment for us."
He maintained that the order has come at a time when only merit-based recruitments are being done in the state.
"I haven't seen the judgment but from what I have read in newspapers, if it is correct, it is unfortunate," Sarma added.
"We will definitely appeal before the Supreme Court and will try the last moment to ensure that no one who had got their job through the wrong way are reinstated," the chief minister added.
The SC's cash-for-jobs scam came to light in 2016 and over 70 persons, including its former chairman Rakesh Kumar Paul and 57 civil service officials, were arrested during the course of investigation by the police.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
29 minutes ago
- The Hindu
What are the issues around deportation?
The story so far:At least seven West Bengal residents who were pushed to Bangladesh by the Border Security Force (BSF) on suspicion of being Bangladeshis were brought back to India after the intervention of the State government. Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee said on June 25 that residents speaking in their native Bengali language are being branded as Bangladeshis in some Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-ruled States. Several people who were pushed from Assam to Bangladesh also returned as they were found to be Indians or that their citizenship cases were sub-judice. Why have matters escalated? After the regime change in Bangladesh in August 2024, the police across the country were asked by the Union Home Ministry to detect Bangladeshis who had illegally entered the country and were living here on forged documents. The drive assumed momentum after the Pahalgam terror attack in April and the subsequent 'Operation Sindoor'. The Ministry has issued instructions to States to deport undocumented migrants but in most cases pushbacks are happening. Around 2,500 suspected Bangladeshis have been pushed back so far. On May 10, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma said that the government has decided to implement the 'pushback' mechanism to check infiltration instead of going through the legal route which is a long-drawn process. Home Minister Amit Shah has asked top intelligence officials to make an example of 'infiltrators' by detecting, detaining, and deporting them. In 2022, at an Intelligence Bureau meeting, Mr. Shah had asked officials to identify around 100 illegal migrants in each State, check documents and arrest and deport them. He asked them to continue with the crackdown even if neighbouring countries do not accept the undocumented migrants. What is the difference between deportation and pushback? Deportation is a legal process which involves detaining and arresting a foreigner suspected to be living in India without documents or who has entered the country illegally. The case is presented before a court and after exhaustion of all legal avenues, which includes conviction by the court, the country which the foreigner belongs to is contacted and the deportation takes places once the identity is confirmed. Pushbacks are not a legal procedure and there are no stated rules. They happen when a foreigner has been caught by the border security force on the international border and, depending on the intensity of the case or the discretion of the border personnel, they are either arrested, made to face the law here or pushed back. Since citizenship and foreigners are Union List subjects, it is the Home Ministry which delegates powers to deport foreigners to State governments. In 2024, the Ministry told the Jharkhand High Court that since the 'Central Government does not maintain a separate federal police force exclusively dedicated to the task of detection and deportation of illegally staying foreigners, action in this regard has been entrusted to the State police.' What is the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950? On June 9, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma said the State government was likely to enforce a 1950 law to identify and evict illegal foreigners, adding that under the law, district commissioners are empowered to declare individuals as illegal immigrants and initiate eviction proceedings. The 1950 Act was passed by Parliament amid communal disturbance and violence following the Partition of India in 1947 and creation of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) bordering West Bengal, Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram. The Act says that 'it extends to the whole of India', but has Assam-specific provisions. Section 2 of the Act says that if the Union government is of the opinion that any person or class of persons, having been ordinarily resident in any place outside India are detrimental to the interests of the general public of India or any Scheduled Tribe in Assam, the Union government may by order, 'direct such person or class of persons to remove himself or themselves from India or Assam within such time and by such route as may be specified in the order'; and 'give such further directions in regard to his or their removal from India or Assam as it may consider necessary or expedient'. What are the laws for foreigners? Till April this year, matters relating to foreigners and immigration were administered through 'pre-Constitution period' laws enacted during the First and Second World Wars, which were the Foreigners Act, 1946, Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920, the Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939 and the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act, 2000. In April, Parliament enacted the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 repealing the old laws. Unlike Pakistan and Bangladesh borders, the rules for movement of people along Nepal and Myanmar are different. Nepal has a free-border agreement with India, and a Free Movement regime (FMR), allowing movement of people residing within 10-km on either side, exists along the India-Myanmar border. Following the May 2023 ethnic violence in Manipur, the Ministry in 2024 decided to fence the entire 1,643-km Myanmar border in the next 10 years. Post the military coup in Myanmar in February 2021, over 40,000 refugees from Myanmar belonging to the Chin ethnic group who are closely related to the Mizo community crossed over to Mizoram. On March 10, 2021, the MHA sent a letter to the State governments of Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur and Mizoram that the refugees should be identified and deported and that the State Governments have no powers to grant 'refugee' status to any foreigner as India is not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention of 1951 and its 1967 Protocol. The refugees continue to live here. What is behind this recent drive? Since the April 22 terror attack at Pahalgam, the police has intensified the drive to detect undocumented migrants. Initially, they were taken by trains to border districts and then pushed to Bangladesh by the BSF. In some instances, migrants after being up picked from Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Maharashtra, were flown by planes to Agartala in Tripura and transported to the Bangladesh border by BSF personnel. The police and the BSF record biometrics and photographs of the undocumented migrants. It is to be noted that the BSF has never acknowledged any of the pushbacks. The Ministry has asked the States to verify the claims of undocumented migrants who claim Indian nationality after which District Magistrates are to send a report within 30 days, failing which the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer would deport them. In 2022, the Unique Identification Authority of India was asked to maintain a 'negative list' to stop undocumented migrants from procuring identity documents in the future.
Mint
30 minutes ago
- Mint
US Supreme Court curbs federal judges' power, handing Trump major victory on executive authority
The Supreme Court delivered a major victory to President Donald Trump on Friday, sharply limiting federal judges' authority to block presidential policies through nationwide injunctions. In a 6-3 ruling split along ideological lines, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that such sweeping orders 'likely exceed the equitable authority' granted to courts, calling them a 'conspicuously nonexistent' practice for most of US history. While the case stemmed from challenges to Trump's executive order denying citizenship to babies of undocumented or temporary residents, the Court deliberately avoided ruling on the order's constitutionality. Instead, Barrett emphasized that courts cannot exercise 'general oversight of the Executive Branch,' effectively dismantling a key check on presidential power that had blocked dozens of Trump's policies. The immediate impact creates legal limbo for birthright citizenship: The policy could take effect in 28 non-challenging states after a 30-day window, potentially creating a 'patchwork' system where citizenship rules differ by state. Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent, read aloud in a rare display of protest, blasted the majority for enabling 'gamesmanship' and issuing 'an open invitation for the Government to bypass the Constitution'. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson similarly warned the ruling permits the executive to 'violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued,' concluding her dissent without the traditional 'respectfully' as a pointed rebuke. The Court suggested challengers pivot to class-action lawsuits, a path immigration advocates immediately pursued in Maryland and New Hampshire filings. Trump celebrated the decision as a 'monumental victory' against 'radical left judges,' while Attorney General Pam Bondi denounced 'rogue judges' who had issued 35 injunctions against Trump policies from just five districts. Legally, the ruling empowers Trump to revive stalled policies like transgender healthcare and refugee resettlement. However, constitutional scholars warn it risks 'chaotic' outcomes, including potential statelessness for newborns and conflicting state-level citizenship standards.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
With Supreme Court ruling, another check on Trump's power fades
WASHINGTON : The Supreme Court ruling barring judges from swiftly blocking government actions, even when they may be illegal, is yet another way that checks on executive authority have eroded as President Donald Trump pushes to amass more power. The decision on Friday, by a vote of 6-3, could allow Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship to take effect in some parts of the country -- even though every court that has looked at the directive has ruled it unconstitutional. That means some infants born to immigrants without legal status or foreign visitors without green cards could be denied citizenship-affirming documentation like Social Security numbers. But the diminishing of judicial authority as a potential counterweight to exercises of presidential power carries implications far beyond the issue of citizenship. The Supreme Court is effectively tying the hands of lower-court judges at a time when they are trying to respond to a steady geyser of aggressive executive branch orders and policies. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Jesus' Tomb Is Opened And Scientists Find Something Unbelievable Novelodge Undo The ability of district courts to swiftly block Trump administration actions from being enforced in the first place has acted as a rare effective check on his second-term presidency. But generally, the pace of the judicial process is slow and has struggled to keep up. Actions that took place by the time a court rules them illegal, like shutting down an agency or sending migrants to a foreign prison without due process, can be difficult to unwind. Presidential power historically goes through ebbs and flows, with fundamental implications for the functioning of the system of checks and balances that defines American-style democracy. Live Events But it has generally been on an upward path since the middle of the 20th century. The growth of the administrative state inside the executive branch, and the large standing armies left in place as World War II segued into the Cold War, inaugurated what historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. coined the "imperial presidency." Presidential power waned in the 1970s, in the period encompassing the Watergate scandal and the end of the Vietnam War. Courts proved willing to rule against the presidency, as when the Supreme Court forced President Richard Nixon to turn over his Oval Office tapes. Members of both parties worked together to enact laws imposing new or restored limits on the exercise of executive power. But the present era is very different. Presidential power began to grow again in the Reagan era and after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. And now Trump, rejecting norms of self-restraint, has pushed to eliminate checks on his authority and stamp out pockets of independence within the government while only rarely encountering resistance from a Supreme Court he reshaped and a Congress controlled by a party in his thrall. The decision by the Supreme Court's conservative majority comes as other constraints on Trump's power have also eroded. The administration has steamrolled internal executive branch checks, including firing inspectors general and sidelining the Justice Department 's Office of Legal Counsel, which traditionally set guardrails for proposed policies and executive orders. And Congress, under the control of Trump's fellow Republicans, has done little to defend its constitutional role against his encroachments. This includes unilaterally dismantling agencies Congress had said shall exist as a matter of law, firing civil servants in defiance of statutory limits, and refusing to spend funds that lawmakers had authorized and appropriated. Last week, when Trump unilaterally bombed Iranian nuclear sites without getting prior authorization from Congress or making any claim of an imminent threat, one Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, stepped forward to call the move unconstitutional since Congress has the power to declare war. Trump reacted ferociously, declaring that he would back a primary challenger to end Massie's political career, a clear warning shot to any other Republican considering objecting to his actions. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, recently told her constituents that "we are all afraid" of Trump. While the immediate beneficiary of the Supreme Court's ruling is Trump, the decision also promises to free his successors from what has been a growing trend of district court intervention into presidential policymaking. In the citizenship case, the justices stripped district court judges of the authority to issue so-called universal injunctions, a tool that lower courts have used to block government actions they deem most likely illegal from taking effect nationwide as legal challenges to them play out. The frequency of such orders has sharply increased in recent years, bedeviling presidents of both parties. Going forward, the justices said, lower courts may only grant injunctive relief to the specific plaintiffs who have filed lawsuits. That means the Trump administration may start enforcing the president's birthright citizenship order in the 28 states that have not challenged it, unless individual parents have the wherewithal and gumption to bring their own lawsuits. The full scope of the ruling remains to be seen given that it will not take effect for 30 days. It is possible that plaintiffs and lower-court judges will expand the use of class-action lawsuits as a different path to orders with a nationwide effect. Such an option, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion, would be proper so long as they obey procedural limits for class-action cases. Still, in concurring opinions, two other key members of the conservative bloc, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, warned lower-court judges not to lower standards for using alternative means to issue sweeping orders in an effort to circumvent the ruling. Alito wrote that "district courts should not view today's decision as an invitation to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors" of legal rules. Thomas added that if judges do not "carefully heed this court's guidance" and act within limits, "this court will continue to be 'duty bound' to intervene." In a rare move that signaled unusually intense opposition, Justice Sonia Sotomayor read aloud a summary of her dissenting opinion from the bench Friday. Calling the ruling a grave attack on the American system of law, she said it endangered constitutional rights for everyone who is not a party to lawsuits defending them. "Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship," she wrote. "Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship. The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief." Sotomayor also said the administration did not ask to entirely halt the multiple injunctions against its order because it knew the directive was patently illegal, and accused the majority of playing along with that open gamesmanship. She, like the other two justices who joined her dissent, is a Democratic appointee. All six of the justices who voted to end universal injunctions were Republican appointees, including three Trump installed on the bench in his first term. The same supermajority has ruled in ways that have enhanced his power in other avenues. Last year, the bloc granted Trump presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for his official acts as president. The ruling, by Chief Justice John Roberts, asserted that presidents have absolute immunity for anything they do with the Justice Department and their supervision of federal law enforcement power. Emboldened, Trump this year has built on his approach from his first term, when he informally pressured prosecutors to investigate his political foes. He has issued formal orders to scrutinize specific people he does not like, shattering the post-Watergate norm of a Justice Department case independent from White House political control. The supermajority also has blessed Trump's gambit in firing Democratic members of independent agency commissions before their terms were up. The conservative justices have made clear that they are prepared to overturn a long-standing precedent allowing Congress to establish specialized agencies to be run by panels whose members cannot be arbitrarily fired by presidents. In a separate concurrence, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson offered a realpolitik take. The majority's exegesis of what powers Congress understood itself to be granting lower courts when it created them in 1789 was a smokescreen of mind-numbing "legalese," she wrote, obscuring the question of whether a court can order the executive branch to follow the law. "In a constitutional republic such as ours, a federal court has the power to order the executive to follow the law -- and it must," she wrote before striking a cautionary note. "Everyone, from the president on down, is bound by law," she added. "By duty and nature, federal courts say what the law is (if there is a genuine dispute), and require those who are subject to the law to conform their behavior to what the law requires. This is the essence of the rule of law." But Barrett accused her of forgetting that courts, too, must obey legal limits. "Justice Jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary," Barrett wrote. "No one disputes that the executive has a duty to follow the law. But the judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation -- in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the judiciary from doing so." This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
