Assam man says mother detained, Supreme Court to hear plea
Initially, the Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma said it will tag the petition 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 said, contending that the arrest of the petitioner's mother violated norms on arrest laid down by the SC 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 D K Basu judgment. SP (Superintendent of Police) goes to the house, picks her up and throws her. How can that be?' the senior counsel submitted.
The petitioner, 26-year-old Iunuch (Yunus) Ali, has alleged that his mother Monowara Bewa was detained on May 24 after being called to the Dhubri police station on the pretext of recording her statement.
The plea also sought a direction restraining the deportation or 'push back' of the detainee across any Indian border.
Sibal said that the woman had previously filed a special leave petition (SLP) in the apex court, which is still pending, and that she had also been granted bail, yet she was being 'thrown out'.
The SLP challenges the decision of the Gauhati High Court, which upheld a Foreigners Tribunal ruling declaring Bewa a foreigner – a decision that has remained under challenge before the apex court since 2017. Bewa was on bail since December 12, 2019, following a Supreme Court order in this regard.
The court issued notice and fixed the hearing for early next week.
The top court, however, refused to entertain a plea challenging the Assam government's move to deport Bangladeshis who have entered the country illegally.
The Bench asked the petitioner, the All BTC Minority Students Union (ABMSU), to approach the Guwahati High Court.
'69 people are being deported, please go to the Guwahati 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, even in the absence of Foreigners Tribunal declarations, nationality verification, or exhaustion of legal remedies.'
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,' the ABMSU claimed.– With PTI
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
21 minutes ago
- Indian Express
SC issues notice to Centre, states over President's reference on timelines for assent on Bills
The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Centre and all states on the reference made to it by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143 of the Constitution, following its verdict that fixed timelines for the President and governors to act on Bills passed by state assemblies. Article 143 refers to the President's power to consult the top court. A Constitution Bench of Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha, and A S Chandurkar, which took up the matter, said it will fix timelines for the hearing next week. CJI Gavai said, 'Tentatively, we propose to start (the hearing) somewhere in mid-August.' The counsels appearing for Kerala and Tamil Nadu said they propose to question the maintainability of the reference. The CJI asked them to reserve their arguments for the hearing. In the reference made under Article 143(1) of the Constitution, President Murmu has posed 14 questions over the top court's April 8 verdict. The President sought to know whether the actions of governors and the President are justiciable (whether courts can look into it) and whether such timelines can be imposed on them in the absence of any such provision in the Constitution. The reference pointed out that 'there are conflicting judgments of the Supreme Court as to whether the assent of the President of India under Article 201 of the Constitution of India is justiciable or not'. Under Article 145 (3), when the President makes a reference for the court's opinion, it is placed before a five-judge bench. On April 8, the Supreme Court had set a timeline for governors to act on pending Bills, and for the first time, prescribed that the President should take a decision on the Bills, reserved for consideration by the Governor, within three months from the date on which such reference is received. Under Article 201 of the Constitution, no timeframe has been set for a President's decision. The Supreme Court had said that 'in case of any delay beyond this period, appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed' to the state concerned. The April 8 ruling by a two-judge bench, headed by Justice J B Pardiwala, set aside Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi's decision to withhold assent to 10 Bills for consideration of the President in November 2023 after they had already been reconsidered by the Assembly, and said that the action was illegal and erroneous. In her reference to the apex court, President Murmu sought to know: 'Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India justiciable? In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed timeline and the manner of exercise of powers by the President, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India?' Article 201 prescribes the powers of the President and the procedure to be followed while assenting to Bills or withholding assent therefrom, but 'does not stipulate any time frame or procedure to be followed by the President for the exercise of constitutional options.' President Murmu pointed out that Article 200 of the Constitution, which prescribes the powers of the Governor and the procedure to be followed while assenting to Bills, withholding assent to Bills and reserving a Bill for the consideration of the President, 'does not stipulate any time frame upon the Governor for the exercise of constitutional options'. 'Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable? Is Article 361 of the Constitution of India an absolute bar to judicial review in relation to the actions of a Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India? In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit, and the manner of exercise of powers by the Governor, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of all powers under Article 200 of the Constitution of India by the Governor?' the President sought to know. Murmu asked whether 'in light of the constitutional scheme governing the powers of the President', she 'is required to seek advice of the Supreme Court by way of a reference under Article 143 of the Constitution of India and take the opinion of the Supreme Court when the Governor reserves a Bill for the President's assent or otherwise?' 'Are the decisions of the Governor and the President under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution of India, respectively, justiciable at a stage anterior to the law coming into force? Is it permissible for the Courts to undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a Bill, in any manner, before it becomes law?' The President also asked: 'Can the exercise of constitutional powers and the orders of/by the President/Governor be substituted in any manner under Article 142 of the Constitution of India?' Some of the other questions referred to the top court are: 'What are the constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?; Is the Governor bound by the aid & advice tendered by the Council of Ministers while exercising all the options available with him when a Bill is presented before him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?' The reference pointed out that the Constitution enlists numerous instances where the assent of the President has to be obtained before a legislation can take effect in a state. It said that 'the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor and the President under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution of India, respectively, are essentially governed by polycentric considerations, inter alia being federalism, uniformity of laws, integrity and security of the nation, doctrine of separation of powers'. The President said, 'States are frequently approaching the Supreme Court of India invoking Article 32 (Right to Constitutional Remedies) of the Constitution of India (and not Article 131 which states that the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over legal issues between states or between states and the Union), raising issues which by their very nature are federal issues involving interpretation of, inter alia, the Constitution of India.' The reference also said that 'the contours and scope of provisions contained in Article 142 of the Constitution of India in context of issues which are occupied by either constitutional provisions or statutory provisions also needs an opinion of the Supreme Court of India.' Article 142 refers to the enforcement of decrees and orders of the apex court. The President also said that 'the concept of a deemed assent of the President and the Governor is alien to the constitutional scheme and fundamentally circumscribes the power of the President and the Governor'.
The Hindu
21 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Presidential reference hearing: Supreme Court to issue notices to Union, State Govts; hearing in mid-August
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai on Tuesday (July 22, 2025) said the Court will issue notice to the Union Government and all the State Governments on the hearing of presidential reference. Presidential reference hearing live The hearing is on a presidential reference on whether the Court can 'impose' timelines and prescribe the manner of conduct of Governors and the President while dealing with State Bills sent to them for assent or reserved for consideration. The Bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar said they will hear the matter in mid-August. CJI Gavai said they are keeping all the questions open. P. Wilson, who is appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu, said all questions are covered in the April 8 Tamil Nadu Governor judgment. K.K. Venugopal who is appearing for the State of Kerala, questioned the maintainability of the presidential reference. The Supreme Court recorded the Attorney General of India's agreement to assist the Court. Mr. Wilson also said the State of Tamil Nadu will also question the maintainability of the State. Before the Constitution Bench rose, CJI Gavai said the Supreme Court is concerned with the country, adding that the Court will answer the questions raised by the President.
New Indian Express
21 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Many Indian airlines spend more on publicity than on passenger safety: Survey
MUMBAI: A majority of Indian air travellers believe that domestic airlines are focusing more on publicity than passenger safety, according to a nationwide online survey conducted by LocalCircles. The survey, which garnered over 44,000 responses from citizens across 322 districts, found that 76 per cent of respondents felt that many airlines were spending more on marketing campaigns than ensuring flight safety. Of the 26,696 people who responded to the question on publicity versus safety, 43 per cent said 'yes, all of them' while 33 per cent said 'yes, some of them.' Only 11 per cent believed no airline was prioritising publicity over safety, while 13 per cent gave no definitive answer. The findings come in the wake of a string of recent aviation incidents involving several Indian carriers, including Air India and SpiceJet. Last month, a Tata Group-operated Air India Boeing 787-8 aircraft crashed shortly after takeoff from Ahmedabad en route to London Gatwick, killing 241 of the 242 passengers and 19 people on the ground. The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) is currently probing the cause of the tragedy and has submitted a preliminary report.
