SC refuses to entertain plea challenging ‘push backs' from Assam to Bangladesh
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a petition challenging alleged deportations to Bangladesh of people other than 63 individuals identified as foreigners in Assam and directed the petitioner to approach the high court.
'You take your recourse to approach the Gauhati high court. 63 persons are being deported. You go to the high court,' said a bench of justices Sanjay Karol and SC Sharma, as it heard a student group's petition.
The petition annexed press clippings showing people other than the 63 were being picked up and deported to Bangladesh.
Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, who represented the petitioner All BTC Minority Students Union (ABMSU), said the 63 were declared foreigners after the external affairs ministry and Bangladesh confirmed their nationality for deportations. 'The action of deportation is based on a pending order,' he said, referring to a February 4 Supreme Court order asking the Union and the Assam governments to deport the foreigners at an Assam detention centre by expediting the process of verification of their nationality with the external affairs ministry and Bangladesh.
The court also scheduled for next week the hearing of a habeas corpus plea of a son seeking the whereabouts of his mother, claiming police picked her up for deportation to Bangladesh.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for the petitioner, said the alleged arrest was directly in violation of the DK Basu guidelines of the Supreme Court on arrests. 'They simply come and pick her up, and she is thrown out. She was out on bail by the order of this court since December 28, 2019.'
Sibal cited the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee Versus Union of India case. He added that the court directed the release of detainees in the foreigners camp in Assam, who had completed over three years in detention, subject to certain conditions. The petitioner's mother, Monowara Bera, was among those detainees granted bail.
The court said it would tag this matter with a pending plea. 'We do not know if she is in the country anymore.'
Sibal said that the petitioner has approached the court to know her whereabouts. 'Let the state file a counter, as we do not know where she is. They need to respond where she is.'
The court issued a notice to the Assam government after the petitioner said that his mother was detained at Dhubri police station since May 24, and he has no information whether she was deported.
ABMSU has cited similar instances of deportation, citing newspaper reports. It said retired school teacher Kahirul Islam, Abu Bakkar Siddik, and Akbar Ali were allegedly 'pushed back' into Bangladesh without due process.
The ABMSU's petition said the instances reflect a growing pattern of Assam Police and administration's deportations through informal 'push back' mechanisms, without any judicial oversight or adherence to the safeguards the Constitution and the Supreme Court envisage.
The petition said the 'push back' policy was being implemented in the border districts of Dhubri, South Salmara, and Goalpara. 'This is not only legally indefensible, but also threatens to render stateless numerous Indian citizens, especially those from poor and marginalised communities who were either declared foreigners ex parte or have no access to legal aid to challenge their status.'
The petition sought a stay on the deportations of people other than those on the list of 63 foreigners and a direction to the state and Union government to place the record of the process before the Supreme Court.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
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.
Economic Times
34 minutes ago
- Economic Times
How the Emergency makes us immune to democracy damage
Agencies Representational Each year at midnight, June 25-26, I wish my mother a very happy birthday. This year, I was late by 15 minutes as I got caught up 'doing the dishes'. I've put that in quotes not because 'doing the dishes' is a euphemism for some nefarious midnight activity involving my sole contact in the PMO, but because putting something like that in quotes can immediately arouse the suspicion of said O, and keep them on their toes. The thing is, my mother's birthday falls on the anniversary of the Emergency. She turned 33 a few minutes after president Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed signed and sent back the draft declaration using provisions of Article 352 of the Constitution to impose an internal emergency. Looking at Abu Abraham's famous cartoon - published some six months into Emergency - of Ali Ahmed stretching out from a Rashtrapati-tub to return pen and paper to an outstretched hand 'symbol' behind the door, I suitably-bootably wonder whether such a cartoon would have passed today. Not so much for its critique of an obsequious nominal head of state, as much for its depiction of a president in his birthday suit. So, even being the luckiest guy to have the least authoritarian of mothers, my mum's birthday is inextricably linked with Emergency. As Srinath Raghavan's illuminating new biography, Indira Gandhi and the Years That Transformed India, reveal, an emergency under Article 352 was already in place since December 1971 during the Bangladesh War. But Mrs G wanted a new emergency - her One Big Beautiful Emergency, if you will. Much before June 12, 1975, when Allahabad High Court found her guilty of corruption in the March 1971 general election - a case filed by Raj Narain of Samyukta Socialist Party, whom she defeated by more than 1 lakh votes at Rae Bareli - Gandhi 'came to regard the dangers posed by the RSS' activism as linked to an American-supported attempt at destabilising her government'. Assassination of her aide, cabinet minister, and Congress fundraiser LN Mishra in January 1975 didn't help matters. Gandhi wanted to crack down on RSS, and Ananda Margis, by invoking an all-encompassing emergency even before the Allahabad High Court verdict. As Raghavan reminds us, 'Far from being lawful, the declaration of emergency on 25 June 1975 was a coup d'etat: in the original sense of the term a 'master-stroke of the state,' whose signature elements were surprise and secrecy.' Like every year, the media and its content-providers rolled out thoughts on the Emergency this year, too - the one day that LK Advani is taken out of the freezer and thawed for his 'bend-crawl' aphorism. But for all the righteous horror poured on 'the day democracy died', 50 years on, the Emergency has a new function: as insurance against any charge that India today could possibly be anything other than a model democracy. One extremely handy thing about any 'darkest chapter in history' is that it allows 'dark chapters' to come across as gentle gambols in the park. Take the Jewish holocaust. After that particular Nazi pol science field study, you seriously reckon Israel can be charged of genocide for its 'tough love' with Gaza? With countries like Germany falling for it faster than you can say, 'Fast and the Fuhrious', the upper-cased 'Holocaust' is brought out like garlic and crucifix to drive away any accusation of lower-cased 'holocaust' being carried out by Israeli ghetto-blasters. The same principle holds with our Emergency. Mention any current dodge'n'damage to democratic institutions by the state - whether GoI or state governments - and 'Emergency' is trotted out like Asrani with a toothbrush moustache. Umar Khalid, almost five years in Tihar without a trial, charges against whom have yet to framed in court? 'Pfft. That's nothing compared to what happened during the Emergency'. The other standard rebuttal being, 'Have you seen Pakistan?' Which is why, after 'doing the dishes' with Pontius Pilate diligence, and wishing Ma on Thursday, I realised why so many people are horrified by Donald Trump, his ICEmen, executive orders, sending military to quell protestors, using social media telepathy to weed out bad apples from entering America, his sycophantasmagoric coterie... Poor things, they have no Indira's Emergency to measure Trump's Urgency against, and find phew-relief like we do. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. The bike taxi dreams of Rapido, Uber, and Ola just got a jolt. But they're winning public favour Second only to L&T, but controversies may weaken this infra powerhouse's growth story Punit Goenka reloads Zee with Bullet and OTT focus. Can he beat mighty rivals? 3 critical hurdles in India's quest for rare earth independence HDB Financial may be cheaper than Bajaj Fin, but what about returns? Why Sebi must give up veto power over market infra institutions These large- and mid-cap stocks can give more than 23% return in 1 year, according to analysts Are short-term headwinds from China an opportunity? 8 auto stocks: Time to be contrarian? Buy, Sell or Hold: Motilal Oswal initiates coverage on Supreme Industries; UBS initiates coverage on PNB Housing
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.
