SC refuses to entertain plea over deportation drive in Assam, asks petitioner to approach HC

'Why are you not going to the Gauhati High Court?' the bench asked senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, who appeared for petitioner All BTC Minority Students Union.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma told the petitioner to approach the Gauhati High Court in the matter.
New Delhi, Jun 2 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea which alleged that the Assam government has reportedly launched a 'sweeping' drive to detain and deport persons suspected to be foreigners without nationality verification or exhaustion of legal remedies.
Hegde said the plea was based on an order passed by the apex court earlier.
'Please go to the Gauhati High Court,' the bench observed.
Hegde said the petitioner would withdraw the plea to take appropriate recourse before the high court.
The bench allowed him to withdraw the plea.
The plea, filed through advocate Adeel Ahmed, referred to a February 4 order of the top court which, while dealing with a separate petition, had directed Assam to initiate the process of deportation of 63 declared foreign nationals, whose nationality was known, within two weeks.
'Pursuant to the said order (of February 4)… the state of Assam 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,' the plea claimed.
It referred to news reports, including one about a retired school teacher who was allegedly 'pushed back' into Bangladesh.
'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,' it claimed.
'The 'push back' policy, as implemented, violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by deporting individuals without due process, thereby denying them the opportunity to contest their deportation and infringing upon their right to life and personal liberty,' the plea claimed.
It alleged that the indiscriminate application of deportation directives, coupled with absence of proper identification, verification and notice mechanisms, has resulted in a situation where Indian citizens were being wrongfully incarcerated and threatened with removal to foreign territories without lawful basis.
The plea sought a direction that no person shall be deported pursuant to the February 4 order without a prior reasoned declaration by the foreigners tribunal, without adequate opportunity of appeal or review and verification of nationality by the Ministry of External Affairs.
It also sought a declaration that the 'push back' policy adopted by Assam was violative of Articles 14 (equality before law) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution and contrary to binding judicial precedents. PTI ABA ABA DV DV
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

First Post

33 minutes ago

• First Post

Was Donald Trump's decision to bomb Iran unconstitutional?

US President Trump's airstrikes on Iran have raised questions over presidential war powers, with lawmakers across the aisle questioning whether he violated the Constitution by bypassing Congress. While some back the strikes as necessary, others call them illegal, even impeachable read more Demonstrators hold a papier-mache head depicting US President Donald Trump, as they gather to march against the upcoming Nato leaders' summit, at The Hague, Netherlands, June 22, 2025. File Image/Reuters United States President Donald Trump's recent airstrikes targeting Iranian nuclear sites have everyone asking one question: can a US president launch offensive military action without direct approval from Congress? The question has prompted a bipartisan outcry, with lawmakers examining the constitutionality of Trump's decision and the implications for war powers delegated under US law. While some have praised the strikes as strategically necessary, others have called them a dangerous breach of executive authority that potentially defies the US Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Did Trump act without congressional green light? The airstrikes ordered by Trump on June 21 came amid a broader escalation following Israel's bombardment of Iranian nuclear and military infrastructure. Though Trump has consistently voiced reluctance to entangle the US in further conflicts in the region, he defended the decision by saying, 'Iran can't have a nuclear weapon.' Yet the timing and unilateral nature of the strikes have raised concerns across both political aisles. US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed during a press conference that Congress was notified only after the aircraft safely exited Iranian airspace. 'They were notified after the planes were safely out. But we complied with the notification requirements of the War Powers Act,' Hegseth said. That admission did little to ease tensions among lawmakers who viewed the operation as constitutionally questionable. How have lawmakers objected to Trump's move? Some of the most vocal objections came from members of Trump's own party. US Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a Republican known for his strict constitutionalist views, responded to the strikes by stating bluntly, 'This is not Constitutional.' Days earlier, Massie co-authored a resolution with Democratic Representative Ro Khanna of California aimed at preventing unauthorised military action against Iran. Representative Warren Davidson of Ohio, another Republican typically aligned with Trump, added: 'While President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional.' Both Davidson and Massie put a spotlight on the requirement for congressional authorisation before initiating military hostilities against a foreign nation. On the Democratic side, US Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia reiterated his longstanding commitment to reclaiming Congress's war powers. 'We're going to have the briefing this week. We'll have a vote,' he said on Fox News Sunday. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'I know many Republicans will fall in line and say a president can do whatever he wants. But I hope members of the Senate and the House will take their Article I responsibilities seriously.' Kaine's resolution — privileged under Senate rules — can be fast-tracked to the floor and requires only a simple majority to pass. Other lawmakers have suggested the president's actions may warrant impeachment. US Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York posted on social media: 'The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorisation is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers. He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations.' US Representative Sean Casten of Illinois made similar arguments: 'No president has the authority to bomb another country that does not pose an imminent threat to the US without the approval of Congress. This is an unambiguous impeachable offense.' Casten called on Speaker Mike Johnson to protect Congress's constitutional responsibilities: 'Grow a spine.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD US Senator Bernie Sanders, speaking during a campaign event in Tulsa, called the strikes 'grossly unconstitutional' and stated, 'The only entity that can take this country to war is the US Congress. The president does not have the right.' House Minority Whip Katherine Clark stated that the power to declare war 'resides solely with Congress,' calling Trump's actions 'unauthorised and unconstitutional.' House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries expressed concern that Trump 'failed to seek congressional authorisation' and warned that the move could entangle the US in a potentially 'disastrous war.' Despite the criticism, Trump also received support from some lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. US Speaker Mike Johnson said, 'The President fully respects the Article I power of Congress, and tonight's necessary, limited, and targeted strike follows the history and tradition of similar military actions under presidents of both parties.' Senate Majority Leader John Thune also backed the president's decision, signalling a likelihood of Republican congressional support. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Some Democrats also refrained from raising legal objections. Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland and Representative Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey supported the strikes without questioning their constitutionality. US Senator John Fetterman offered full endorsement of the military action, stating: 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities. I'm grateful for and salute the finest military in the world.' Are Trump's strikes on Iran constitutional? At the centre of the dispute lies the US Constitution. Article I gives Congress the authority to declare war, while Article II names the president as Commander-in-Chief. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was introduced to clarify this balance after repeated US military interventions without formal war declarations, most notably in Vietnam and Cambodia. The War Powers Act mandates that the president notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying US armed forces and limits unauthorised deployments to 60 or 90 days without further congressional approval. It also requires consultation with Congress 'in every possible instance' before initiating hostilities. Yet the law has often been sidestepped. Presidents have used various justifications — emergency threats, existing authorisations or interpretations of commander-in-chief powers — to engage militarily without a formal declaration of war. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Since World War II, the US has engaged in multiple conflicts — from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan — without official war declarations. One major legal instrument enabling military operations without congressional votes is the Authorisation for Use of Military Force (AUMF). Passed in 2001 and 2002 for operations related to terrorism and Iraq, these authorisations have since been invoked for unrelated operations. For instance, Trump relied on the 2003 AUMF to justify the 2020 killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani. How is this legislation often side-stepped? In response to Trump's recent actions, several new legislative measures have been introduced. Kaine's resolution aims to reassert Congress's authority before further military engagement with Iran. Massie and Khanna filed a joint measure in the House based on the War Powers Act to block 'unauthorised hostilities.' Sanders introduced the No War Against Iran Act to prohibit federal funds from being used for any military force against Iran. The ongoing conflict between the legislative and executive branches over war-making powers has been a hallmark of US history. The US Supreme Court last addressed the issue in 1861 during the Civil War, when it ruled that US President Lincoln's naval blockade of southern ports was constitutional in the absence of a war declaration because the executive 'may repel sudden attacks.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Still, critics argue that the War Powers Resolution lacks real enforcement mechanisms. Resolutions to end unauthorised hostilities are often subject to presidential vetoes, which require a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override. While the law provides a framework for transparency and reporting — over 100 such notifications have been sent to Congress since 1973 — it remains a contested tool. US Representative Ro Khanna said during an appearance on MSNBC: 'This is the first true crack in the MAGA base.' With inputs from agencies

The Hindu

an hour ago

• The Hindu

Pakistan politicians, others ask govt to review Trump's nomination for Nobel Peace Prize

Several Pakistani politicians and notable figures have asked the government to reconsider its decision to recommend President Donald Trump for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize after the U.S. bombed Iran's three nuclear sites. The government, in a surprise move on Friday (June 20, 2025), announced that it would nominate Mr. Trump for the prestigious award due to his peacemaking efforts during the recent India-Pakistan conflict. A letter of recommendation, signed by Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar, has already been sent to the Nobel Peace Prize Committee in Norway. But the decision came under scrutiny after the U.S. bombed Iran's Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz nuclear sites, joining Israel to dent Tehran's nuclear programme. The Dawn newspaper reported that some leading politicians demanded the government review its decision in light of the latest development. Veteran politician Maulana Fazlur Rehman, who heads the Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam (JUI-F), demanded that the government rescind its decision. 'President Trump's claim of peace has proven to be false; the proposal for the Nobel Prize should be withdrawn,' Mr. Fazl told workers at a party meeting in Murree on Sunday (June 22, 2025). He said that Mr. Trump's recent meeting and lunch with Chief of Army Staff (COAS) Field Marshal Asim Munir 'pleased Pakistani rulers so much' that they recommended nominating the U.S. President for the Nobel Prize. "Mr. Trump has supported the Israeli attacks on Palestine, Syria, Lebanon and Iran. How can this be a sign of peace?' Mr. Fazl questioned. 'With the blood of Afghans and Palestinians on America's hands, how can he claim to be a proponent of peace?' Mr. Trump had campaigned for office as a 'peacemaker' who would use his negotiating skills to quickly end wars in Ukraine and Gaza, but both conflicts are still raging five months into his presidency. Former Senator Mushahid Hussain wrote on X: 'Since Mr. Trump is no longer a potential peacemaker, but a leader who has willfully unleashed an illegal war, Pakistan government must now review, rescind and revoke his Nobel nomination!' He said Mr. Trump had been 'trapped by (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu) and the Israeli war lobby, committing the" biggest blunder of his presidency'. 'Mr. Trump will now end up presiding over the decline of America!' Mr. Trump 'engaged in deception and betrayed his own promise not to start new wars', Mr. Mushahid said in another post, strongly condemning the U.S. attacks on Iran. Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) lawmaker Ali Muhammad Khan wrote 'reconsider' on his X account, highlighting the 'U.S. attack on Iran and continuous U.S. support of Israeli killings in Gaza'. In a separate post, the Opposition PTI condemned the 'unprovoked' U.S. strikes and voiced 'total support' for Iran's sovereignty. Raoof Hasan, head of PTI's political think-tank, said the government's decision was now a 'cause of unmitigated shame and embarrassment for those who were instrumental in making the choice'.'That's why it is said that legitimacy can neither be bought nor gifted,' said Mr. Hasan, as he took a jibe at the government. He also denounced the U.S.' 'total disregard for international covenants' through attacks on Iran. Former Senator Afrasiab Khattak said, 'The sycophancy adopted by the Pakistani ruling elite in nominating President Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize is not part of normative conduct in international diplomacy.''It was most embarrassing to announce the nomination hours before Mr. Trump ordered to bomb Iranian nuclear sites,' the veteran politician noted. Jamaat-i-Islami chief Naeemur Rehman has said the decision 'undermines our national dignity and grace'. Maleeha Lodhi, Pakistan's former Ambassador to the U.S., termed the move 'unfortunate' and said it did not reflect the public's views. Senior journalist Mariana Baabar, in a post on X, said that 'today Pakistan does not look too good either', sharing the government's post announcing its intention to nominate mR. Trump for the Nobel. Author and activist Fatima Bhutto asked: 'Will Pakistan withdraw its nomination for him to receive the Nobel Peace Prize?'

Hindustan Times

an hour ago

• Hindustan Times

Pakistani politicians, activists call on govt to review Trump's nomination for Nobel peace prize

Several Pakistani politicians and notable figures have asked the government to reconsider its decision to recommend President Donald Trump for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize after the US bombed Iran's three nuclear sites. Pakistan said it would support US President Donald Trump's nomination for a Nobel peace prize(AP) The government, in a surprise move on Friday, announced that it would nominate Trump for the prestigious award due to his peacemaking efforts during the recent India-Pakistan conflict. A letter of recommendation, signed by Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar, has already been sent to the Nobel Peace Prize Committee in Norway. But the decision came under scrutiny after the US bombed Iran's Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz nuclear sites, joining Israel to dent Tehran's nuclear programme. Also Read: Pakistan condemns US strike on Iran day after nominating Trump for Nobel Peace Prize The Dawn newspaper reported that some leading politicians demanded the government review its decision in light of the latest development. Veteran politician Maulana Fazlur Rehman, who heads the Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam (JUI-F), demanded that the government rescind its decision. 'President Trump's claim of peace has proven to be false; the proposal for the Nobel Prize should be withdrawn,' Fazl told workers at a party meeting in Murree on Sunday. He said that Trump's recent meeting and lunch with Chief of Army Staff (COAS) Field Marshal Asim Munir 'pleased Pakistani rulers so much' that they recommended nominating the US president for the Nobel Prize. "Trump has supported the Israeli attacks on Palestine, Syria, Lebanon and Iran. How can this be a sign of peace?' Fazl questioned. 'With the blood of Afghans and Palestinians on America's hands, how can he claim to be a proponent of peace?' Trump had campaigned for office as a 'peacemaker' who would use his negotiating skills to quickly end wars in Ukraine and Gaza, but both conflicts are still raging five months into his presidency. Former senator Mushahid Hussain wrote on X: 'Since Trump is no longer a potential peacemaker, but a leader who has willfully unleashed an illegal war, Pakistan government must now review, rescind and revoke his Nobel nomination!' He said Trump had been 'trapped by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli war lobby, committing the" biggest blunder of his presidency'. 'Trump will now end up presiding over the decline of America!' Trump 'engaged in deception and betrayed his own promise not to start new wars', Mushahid said in another post, strongly condemning the US attacks on Iran. Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) lawmaker Ali Muhammad Khan wrote 'reconsider' on his X account, highlighting the 'US attack on Iran and continuous US support of Israeli killings in Gaza'. In a separate post, the Opposition PTI condemned the 'unprovoked' US strikes and voiced 'total support' for Iran's sovereignty. Raoof Hasan, head of PTI's political think-tank, said the government's decision was now a 'cause of unmitigated shame and embarrassment for those who were instrumental in making the choice'. 'That's why it is said that legitimacy can neither be bought nor gifted,' said Hasan, as he took a jibe at the government. He also denounced the US' 'total disregard for international covenants' through attacks on Iran. Former senator Afrasiab Khattak said, 'The sycophancy adopted by the Pakistani ruling elite in nominating President Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize is not part of normative conduct in international diplomacy.' 'It was most embarrassing to announce the nomination hours before Trump ordered to bomb Iranian nuclear sites,' the veteran politician noted. Jamaat-i-Islami chief Naeemur Rehman has said the decision 'undermines our national dignity and grace'. Maleeha Lodhi, Pakistan's former ambassador to the US, termed the move 'unfortunate' and said it did not reflect the public's views. Senior journalist Mariana Baabar, in a post on X, said that 'today Pakistan does not look too good either', sharing the government's post announcing its intention to nominate Trump for the Nobel. Author and activist Fatima Bhutto asked: 'Will Pakistan withdraw its nomination for him to receive the Nobel Peace Prize?'