 Guwahati, Thursday, April 27, 2006 Govt order challenged in SC By A Staff Reporter GUWAHATI, April 26 Member of Parliament Sarbananda Sonowal today filed a rejoinder in the Supreme Court in response to the petition filed by the State Government on the case relating to amendment of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 and claimed that the Government did not disclose any defence to the challenge raised in the petition challenging the amendment. Sonowal challenged the gazette notification of the Government of India, issued on February 10 this year amending the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order of 1964 and bringing in Foreigners (Tribunals for Assam Order), 2006. Sonowals contention was that the Government of India did not follow the directive of the Supreme Court, dated July 12, 2005, in which the Court scrapped the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act and directed the Government to detect the foreigners living in the State through Tribunals to be established under the provisions of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. The State Government yesterday filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court and claimed that the onus of proof still lies on the suspected foreigners and claimed that the Foreigners (Tribunals for Assam) Order, 2006 was more effective than the Foreigners (Tribunals) order, 1964. But in the rejoinder petition, Sonowal today challenged the contention of the Government of Assam and said that the Foreigners (Tribunals for Assam) Order was not consistent with the Judgement of the Court on scrapping of the IM(DT) Act. In his rejoinder to the State Governments affidavit, Sonowal said that the burden of proof under the Foreigners (Tribunals for Assam) order, in regard to whether a person is a foreigner or not would lie on the person concerned, but as per clause 3 of the same order, it requires the Tribunal to consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and to satisfy itself that the basic facts are prima facie established even before it issues notices to a suspected foreigner. Sonowal contradicted the Governments stand that the provisions of the Foreigners (Tribunals for Assam) Order would be more effective than the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order , 1964 for detection of foreigners living in the State. Sonowal further said that as per the new order, the Tribunals would have to examine whether a complaint is a frivolous one or has prima facie substance even before issuing notice to a suspected foreigner and in a way, the burden of proof would lie on the authorities making a reference to the complaint at the initial stage of the proceeding, which is a clear violation of the Foreigners Act, 1946. Conferring a discretion upon the Tribunal to decide whether to proceed further in a particular case is also not contemplated under the provisions of the Foreigners Act and the Tribunal is bound to decide the issue after hearing evidence, placing the burden of proof upon the suspected foreigner, Sonowal said in his rejoinder to the State Government affidavit. Meanwhile, talking to this correspondent, Sonowal said that after years of legal battle, the Supreme Court struck down the IMDT Act last year and directed the Government to detect foreigners through tribunals to be set up under the provisions of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, but instead of following the directive of the Court, the Government amended the Order to bring in a separate set of laws for detection of foreigners living in the State, forcing him to approach the Apex Court again. |
_______________________________________________ assam mailing list assam@assamnet.org http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
