NEW DELHI, April 22? While supporting repeal of the IMDT Act, the Central Government has ruled out extension of the controversial Act to any other States pointing out that it has hampered the process of detection and deportation of illegal migrants. The clarification was given by additional Solicitor General, Harish Salve during the course of the final hearing of the Writ Petition filed by Sarbananda Sonowal challenging the IMDT Act before Special bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice G.B.Patnaik, Justice Brajesh Kumar and Justice Arijit Pasayat, here this afternoon.
The hearing of the case was adjourned after over 45 minutes of trial and is now scheduled to come up again on August 13, even as Assam Government was asked to make its written submissions before May 10. The Court further clubbed the Writ petition filed by Romesh Borpatra Gohain challenging section 6A of the Citizenship Act, with Sri Sonowal case. The relevant section grants citizenship rights to children of the immigrants, who came after 1971. Earlier in a crowded Court Room number three, a battery of top lawyers hired by various parties involved in the case began arguing the case before the Special Bench of the Apex Court. The petitioner was represented by Ashok Desai, Assam Government by G.I. Sanghvi, the Assam Pradesh Congress Committee (APCC) by senior Congress leader, Salman Khursid and advocate, Azim Laskar, who also represented United Minority Front.
The Bench appeared curious as to why Assam Government wished to change its stand on the Act, asking Sri Sanghvi in a lighter vein whether he represented the new Assam Government or the old one. ?Sometimes I feel that politicians do not care for what happens to the State. They are only concerned with the politics of vote?, remarked Justice Patnaik. The State Government counsel argued that issue was mainly political in nature, which needed to be sorted out by the Parliament. ?It?s the parliament that frames law and it has power to repeal?, he asserted, adding that it was really a political question.
He further pointed out that a law simply cannot be repealed simply because it was ineffective, an argument, which the Bench bought. Sri Sanghvi also wondered why the Government has been able to convince the Parliament to repeal the Act. However, his claim that records of detection and deportation of illegal immigrants were equally bad in all the States affected by the problem was contested by additional Solicitor General, who pointed out that a half a million Bangladeshis were detected and deported from West Bengal, whereas in Assam only 1500 illegal migrants were detected. The hurdle he pointed out was IMDT Act. Sri Salve said that the entire North Eastern and Eastern Regions were affected by illegal infiltration and in case of Assam, thanks to the IMDT Act the entire demographic profile has changed. He also clarified that there was no question of extending the IMDT Act to other States in response to a query by Sri Sanghvi.
Meanwhile, Sri Desai began his argument by drawing on the provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1946 and the IMDT Act, which he termed as discriminatory in nature. He said to try on the unauthorised entry into the country there were only 16 tribunals of which only five were functional. He cited that Union and Assam Governments, Law Commission of India have all deemed the Act as illegal. It is almost impossible to detect and deport Bangladeshis entering into Assam, he claimed, adding that although six or more States were affected by illegal immigration problem it was only Assam which can do nothing. The principal ground of challenge is that the Act provides a complicated and cumbersome procedure for the detection and deportation of illegal migrants, which is applicable only to the State of Assam.
The impugned Act is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory, making it impossible for citizen residents in Assam to secure the detection and deportation of foreigners on Indian soil. Although the purported object of the Act was to make detection and deportation of illegal migrants in Assam easier, its provision are to the contrary and its operation has failed to meet even the standards prescribed in the Foreigners Act. The Impugned Act has been wholly unsuccessful in checking the continued infiltration, although it recognises that such illegal migration is detrimental to the interest of the public in India. Sri Desai said, pointing out that rate of population growth in Assam during 1901 to 1990 was over 581 per cent compared to 225 per cent recorded in the rest of the country.