• Sign In/Sign Up
  • Menu
  • +Clients Back

    • Get Free Legal Answers
    • Get Fee Estimates
    • Find Lawyers
  • +Lawyers

    • Case Diary & Office Manager
    • Post News & Artilces
    • Post Jobs & Internships
  • +Law Students

    • Campus Ambassadors
    • Find Jobs & Internships
    • Post News & Articles
    • Resource Sharing
  • +Law Schools

    • Post Admissions
    • Post Opportunities
    • Get Law School Rating

  • Home
  • News/Articles
  • Judgement Analysis: Md. Anowar Ali v. State of Assam (2014, 4 Gau LR 839)

Latest News

Back

Judgement Analysis: Md. Anowar Ali v. State of Assam (2014, 4 Gau LR 839)

Courtesy/By: Ashwin Satheesh  |  26 Oct 2020     Views:776

Date of judgement: 22/05/2014

Court: Gauhati High Court

Coram: B.P. Katakey, A.K. Goswami, Ujjal Bhuyan

 

Facts:

The petitioners are all members of the same family, residing in Lankajan, Assam. Petitioner no.1 is the husband of Petitioner no.2 and petitioners no.3 & 4, are their children. A reference was made against them under section 8(1) of the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as IMDT). The tribunal on 17/06/2005 found them to be illegal migrants and ordered their deportation.

In 2011, more than 5 years after the order, the petitioners filed a writ petition at the Gauhati High Court by virtue of Article 226. A single-judge bench of this High Court dismissed the petition and further ordered the deletion of their names from the voters list and their placement into detention camps until deportation. The judge also recognised that the matter ran for over 14 years and spanned 76 sittings and felt that it frustrated the very purpose of the Tribunals.

The petitioners later sought the remittance of the matter to a Tribunal under the Foreigners (Tribunal) Order, 1964 which was duly permitted. They, then filed a petition before the tribunal to secure their release from the detention camp but the same was rejected on 19/10/2011.

The Tribunal’s order was challenged before a single-judge bench of the High Court and this forms the crux of this petition. The learned judge found it pertinent to refer the matter before a full bench of the High Court to decide upon certain issues. The present case arises in pursuance of the referral order passed by the single judge bench on 05/02/2013 to consider the following issues.

 

Issues:

  1. Whether an order passed by IMDT ceases to exist after the declaration of the Act as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Sarbananda Sonowal v. UoI (AIR 2005 SC 2920).
  2. Whether the proceedings heard by IMDT prior to the decision have to be heard again by the Foreigners Tribunal.

 

Laws Applicable:

  1. Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 (Struck down).
  2. Foreigners Act, 1946.
  3. Foreigners (Tribunal) Order, 1964. (hereinafter referred to as Order, 1964)

 

Judgement:

The petition was filed against 3 respondents, namely, the State of Assam, Union of India and the Superintendent of Police (Border), Nagaon. The order was written by Justice A.K. Goswami on behalf of the full bench. The bench had previously ordered the Tribunal to continue with the proceedings but not pass an order as to their status of migrant until directed by the Court. The verdict considered the factual matrix of the issue only to list the dates of occurrences. The decision only sought to provide answers to the issues posed by the Single judge bench and not determine the petitioners’ status.

The Court studied the applicability of the IMDT Act, 1983 that was enacted with the purpose of establishing tribunals in light of the growing number of illegal migrants. The Objects of the Act signify that several individuals have illegally entered India on and after the 25th of March, 1971 and have illegally remained in the county. The objects also add that migrants tried to pass off as Indian citizens and were able to blend in due to shared ethnic similarities. However, the same was felt to be detrimental to the interests of the general public and thus demanded protection.

Section 3(1)(c) of the Act defines an Illegal migrant as a foreigner and has entered India on or after 25/03/1971 without a valid passport or travel document or any other lawful authority in that behalf. A foreigner has been defined under section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 as one who is not a citizen of India. Despite being aimed at doing a greater deed for Indian citizens, the Act by itself was found to have been framed in a manner that made it more favourable to the illegal migrants and detrimental to Indians.

On 12/07/2005, the Supreme Court of India, in Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (AIR 2005 SC 2920) held the IMDT Act to be ultra vires and struck down the legislation in entirety. The 2005 verdict acknowledged the fact that Assam was facing external aggression in addition to internal disturbances and stated that the IMDT Act was denigrating the situation with its stringent, cumbersome and time-consuming procedures. The 3 judge bench of the Supreme Court opined that the Act created difficulties and was inadvertently sheltering illegal migrants instead of deporting them. The existence of the Act was felt to have negated the state’s duty under Article 355 of protecting against external aggression.

The judgement ordered the remitting of matters pending before IMDT Tribunals to those under the Order of 1964. Appeal cases pending before IMDT Tribunals were held to have abated with the cancelling of the IMDT Act as well as its Rules.

The precedent in Sarbananda was heavily relied upon by the Petitioners to quash orders passed by IMDT tribunals before the 2005 declaration. They urged the bench to either quash the Tribunal’s order or initiate a fresh proceeding under the Order of 1964. The respondents contended that no inference as to the invalidity of previous orders by the Tribunal could be derived from the precedent as it merely stated alternative remedies for matters pending adjudication.

The learned judges enunciated that the Court was imposed with the sensitive duty of balancing the issue of illegal migrants on one side as well as the problem of accidental waiving of legitimate citizenship on the other. They affirmed the respondent’s contention as it was rightly pointed out that the verdict in Sarbananda made no reference as to the validity of previous proceedings.

Reference was made to Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 that imposed the onus of proving the legitimacy of citizenship upon the person who was alleged to be an illegal migrant. This was further related to the IMDT Act that was silent on that matter and incidentally placed the burden on the State to prove illegitimacy rather than the concerned person. The decision did not halt by giving their order but rather expounded on it with hypothetical situations. It was decided that any final order passed by an IMDT Tribunal before the 2005 declaration was valid in the eyes of law and could not be set aside. The rationale was succinctly communicated by stating that proceedings under IMDT imposed an absolute burden on the State to prove illegitimacy. If a person was found to be an illegal migrant after such a menial procedure, its validity cannot be contested due to the inherent difficulties in proving otherwise. A request to set it aside and then asking for a fresh proceeding destroys the entire aim of deporting illegal migrants. If a person is declared to be an illegal migrant, he is liable for deportation and such order is binding upon him. Such orders are not obliterated only because the IMDT Act has been struck down.

 The Court granted additional directions for matter pending before an Appellate authority of the IMDT by highlighting the remedial nature of our Constitution. An aggrieved individual can file a suit before a High Court by virtue of Article 226. It was added that applications under 226 had to be studied individually purely based on merit. The onus would directly fall upon the alleged migrant in consonance to the Foreigners Act, 1946.

With regard to the second issue, it was established that a fresh trial under the Order of 1964 could not be claimed as a matter of right but only if the merits of the case warranted such a remand. Moreover, additional liberty was granted to the state to open cases under the Order of 1964 for matters whose references were denied by IMDT Tribunals and Committees due to their faulty nature.

As of 08/05/2014, proceedings against the petitioners were complete and the Tribunal was awaiting the single-judge bench’s verdict before passing their order. The purpose for this verdict was not to decide the specific matter of Anowar Ali and his family instead, to lay down a directive for future matters.

 

Conclusion:

The Hon’ble High Court established that orders passed under IMDT prior to the declaration did not cease to exist. Orders passed under the IMDT that had a provision for appeal could be contested through a writ of certiorari under Article 226. The Court also has the power to forward a case to be decided under the Order of 1964. Furthermore, the State was additionally granted the power to raise fresh cases under Order of 1964 against those that the IMDT tribunals had held not to be illegal migrants.

The decision laid down by the 3 judge bench concluded on the note that any person held to be an illegal migrant and whose petition has been dismissed is liable to be deported and not entitled to ask for a fresh proceeding. The judges gave their verdict and asked the registry to place the WP before the single judge bench to appropriately decide on the matter. In 2019, the judgement in Anowar Ali was constituted to be the guiding authority for orders passed under the IMDT in the Assam NRC case of Assam Public Works v. Union of India (2019, 9 SCC 70).

 

 

 

 

 


Document:


Courtesy/By: Ashwin Satheesh  |  26 Oct 2020     Views:776

News Updates

The Legal Framework of Bail Conditions in India: B...
25 Oct 2024     Views:6251
Changing an Arbitrator Mid-Proceeding: Legal Frame...
23 Oct 2024     Views:5654
IMF Retains India's FY25 GDP Growth Forecast at 7%...
22 Oct 2024     Views:5635
The Evolving Landscape of Russian Anti-Suit Injunc...
22 Oct 2024     Views:5437
Hyundai’s IPO vs Competitors: How the Auto Giant...
15 Oct 2024     Views:5456
The Validity of Arbitration Agreements Post Decree...
14 Oct 2024     Views:5108
SEBI Issues Checklist for AIFs, Their Managers, an...
08 Oct 2024     Views:5471
The Siemens v. Russian Railroads Case...
07 Oct 2024     Views:5460
Empowering Minds in Confinement: Bombay HC’s Lan...
03 Oct 2024     Views:5587
The Dynamics of Novation in Contract Law and Its I...
02 Oct 2024     Views:5767
SEBI Establishes Consistent Evaluation Standards f...
01 Oct 2024     Views:5477
Landmark Decision by Austrian Supreme Court on Arb...
30 Sep 2024     Views:5439
Key Considerations for Indian Commercial Claims...
25 Sep 2024     Views:5391
Boom or Bust: Africa’s Oil Giants Face Declining...
23 Sep 2024     Views:5517
The Growing Role of Arbitration in Intellectual Pr...
23 Sep 2024     Views:5470
Supreme Court Greenlights Sub-Classification of SC...
20 Sep 2024     Views:5799
SEBI's Employee Grievances Prompt Formation of Wor...
19 Sep 2024     Views:5623
Environmental Law in India: Challenges and Opportu...
18 Sep 2024     Views:6475
Navigating the New Legal Landscape of Exclusive Ju...
16 Sep 2024     Views:5587
The Anatomy of Joint Venture Breakups in India (an...
31 Jul 2024     Views:5932
The Integration of ESG in India's M&A Landscape...
31 Jul 2024     Views:5833
Future of AI in Legal Systems and Conflict Resolut...
21 Jul 2024     Views:6019
World Health Assembly Revises International Health...
21 Jul 2024     Views:5870
Pokemon GO Fans Concerned Over Restrictive New Ter...
21 Jul 2024     Views:5980
Landmark Judgment on Setting Aside Arbitration Awa...
21 Jul 2024     Views:5770
Understanding the Process of Issuing Summons in In...
11 Jul 2023     Views:9186
Understanding the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)...
10 Jul 2023     Views:7707
Understanding the Mental Health Act in India: A St...
09 Jul 2023     Views:7746
Combating Manual Scavenging in India: A Call for S...
07 Jul 2023     Views:7532
Impleadment in Supreme Court of India: A Comprehen...
05 Jul 2023     Views:8520
Unraveling the Distinction: Culpable Homicide vs. ...
03 Jul 2023     Views:7842
Understanding the Difference between Money Bills a...
02 Jul 2023     Views:6375
Understanding the Civil Procedure Code in India: A...
01 Jul 2023     Views:7166
The Rights of Criminals in India: Upholding Justic...
30 Jun 2023     Views:6420
Exploring the Differences between the US and India...
29 Jun 2023     Views:6429
What to Do If the Police Refuse to Register Your F...
26 Jun 2023     Views:6685
Timeline of Environmental Protocols: A Global Effo...
25 Jun 2023     Views:6372
How to Deal with Cheque Bounce Cases in India...
24 Jun 2023     Views:6355
Pursuing a Lucrative Litigation Career in Indian L...
22 Jun 2023     Views:6402
Understanding the Emergency Provisions of India: S...
21 Jun 2023     Views:6375
Environment Legislation in India: A Comprehensive ...
20 Jun 2023     Views:6727
Understanding the Emergency Powers of the Constitu...
18 Jun 2023     Views:6216
Understanding the Emergency Powers of the Constitu...
17 Jun 2023     Views:6253
Timeline of Same-Sex Laws in India: A Journey Towa...
16 Jun 2023     Views:6701
Sir Creek Dispute and Legal Implications...
15 Jun 2023     Views:6903
Jurisprudence of NDPS Laws in India: A Comprehensi...
14 Jun 2023     Views:6480
Impleadment Proceedings: A Comprehensive Guide to ...
13 Jun 2023     Views:6912
Understanding Continuing Mandamus: A Powerful Judi...
12 Jun 2023     Views:8917
Res Judicata: The Doctrine of Finality in Legal Pr...
10 Jun 2023     Views:6904
Mastering the Art of Legal Drafting: A Comprehensi...
08 Jun 2023     Views:6568
Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CP...
07 Jun 2023     Views:12246
Understanding the Laws of War: Protecting Humanity...
03 Jun 2023     Views:6282
Understanding the Code of Criminal Procedure (CRPC...
02 Jun 2023     Views:7147
The National Drug and Psychotropic Substances (NDP...
01 Jun 2023     Views:6717
A Step-by-Step Guide: How to File an FIR in India...
31 May 2023     Views:6430
Zero FIR: An Effective Tool for Prompt Criminal Ju...
30 May 2023     Views:6657
Unveiling the Dissent of Judges in Judicial Judgme...
28 May 2023     Views:6290
Environmental Laws in India: Safeguarding Nature f...
25 May 2023     Views:6744
The Recusal of Supreme Court of India Judges from ...
24 May 2023     Views:6408
Understanding the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Cour...
23 May 2023     Views:6852
Article 142 of the Constitution of India: A Compre...
22 May 2023     Views:7082
Landmark Judgments in Arbitration Law in India: A...
21 May 2023     Views:7312
Landmark Cases on Anticipatory Bail in India: A Pa...
20 May 2023     Views:11195
Embracing the Future: How AI is Revolutionizing th...
18 May 2023     Views:6502
Understanding Narcotics Laws in India: A Comprehen...
17 May 2023     Views:6378
Understanding Indian Laws on Cross-Border Transact...
16 May 2023     Views:7517
ADR mechanism of legal adjudication in India...
15 May 2023     Views:6222
Validity of foreign arbitral award in India throug...
14 May 2023     Views:6231
Scope of Section 151 CPC...
13 May 2023     Views:7822
Detailed Overview on Section 482 of Crpc...
11 May 2023     Views:6762
Scope of Decree under CPC...
10 May 2023     Views:6304
Legal development of Arbitration Laws in India....
09 May 2023     Views:6352
Arbitration Laws in India...
07 May 2023     Views:6300
Impact of COVID-19 on Legal Industry...
06 May 2023     Views:8402
Chargesheet not having authority's valid sanction ...
02 May 2023     Views:6586
Same-Sex Marriage in India...
30 Apr 2023     Views:6221
National Commission for Women...
27 Apr 2023     Views:6074
Law making process of India....
26 Apr 2023     Views:7163
Bail Provisions in India...
25 Apr 2023     Views:6097
Life imprisonment in Criminal Law in India...
24 Apr 2023     Views:6525
Contempt of Court...
23 Apr 2023     Views:6354
The collegium system of Judiciary in India....
22 Apr 2023     Views:6035
Remarriage before Expiry of Limitation Period to f...
21 Apr 2023     Views:6026
Need for strict measure of NDPS laws in India....
20 Apr 2023     Views:6194
Nature of Offence under Section 138 of NI Act is Q...
19 Apr 2023     Views:8639
Order VII Rule 11 CPC: Plaint cannot be rejected m...
18 Apr 2023     Views:7240
Mediation: At the Dawn of Golden Age organized at ...
16 Apr 2023     Views:6307
Central Government's motto should be mediate, not ...
15 Apr 2023     Views:6023
Ambedkar Jayanti Celebrations...
14 Apr 2023     Views:6241
Supreme Court of India calls for Preventive Measur...
12 Apr 2023     Views:5793
Pursuing LL.M is not break in Law Practice, Rules ...
11 Apr 2023     Views:6021
Law should take into consideration realities of co...
10 Apr 2023     Views:5848
Delhi High Court said that peeping into public bat...
08 Apr 2023     Views:6458
Delhi High Court denies bails to AAP's Satyendra J...
06 Apr 2023     Views:6576
Supreme Court’s Triple Talaq Judgement Would App...
30 Jan 2023     Views:6298
Article 311(1) | An Order of Removal From Service ...
26 Jan 2023     Views:6773
Leaders shouldn't disrespect the President or Pri...
17 Jan 2023     Views:6079
New bench will hear Ashwini Upadhyay's Supreme Cou...
15 Jan 2023     Views:6221
Person Who Drove Rashly with the Knowledge that it...
12 Jan 2023     Views:6813
The rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot b...
11 Jan 2023     Views:6550
FIND A LAWYER




FIND A LAW SCHOOL



Most Read News Articles

  • Sabrimala Verdict (28 sept 2018) - A End of Taboo.
    On 07 Oct 2020    Views:96535
  • Case Analysis: Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs Union of India
    On 11 Dec 2020    Views:74126
  • Case Analysis: THE BERUBARI UNION CASE
    On 14 Dec 2020    Views:71536
  • DOCTRINE OF ELECTION UNDER TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882
    On 08 Jul 2020    Views:70678
  • A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950 AIR 27, 1950 SCR 88)
    On 08 Nov 2020    Views:60049
View all >>

Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified

86540

Lawyers Network

103860

Users

630

Cities Serving

114

Law Schools Network

59824

Law Students Network

About us

  • Company Profile

Indian Major Laws

  • Indian Constitution
  • IPC
  • CrPC
  • CPC
  • Companies Act
  • Indian Evidence Act
  • CGST Act
  • Limitation Act

Policies

  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Refund & Cancellation

    Ads & Media

  • Resource Sharing
  • Advertiser(Sign Up/Login)
  • Media

    Careers

  • Internships
  • Jobs
  • Student Journalists

    HELP & SUPPORT

  • Contact Us
  • Grievances
  • Test

News

  • Legal News
  • Post Article
  • Post Interview

Legal Library

  • Central Acts
  • Deeds Drafts [1128 ]
  • Legal Maxims

Connect

Lawsisto Direct

 

  •  
  •  
DISCLAIMER
Copyright © Lawsisto Private Limited. All rights reserved.
Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by Lawsisto Private Limited. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may
be used for any purpose. By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy and Content Policies.