2005 (7) TMI 654 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether certain provisions of the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, (Act No.39 of 1983) 1983 are ultra vires the Constitution of India, null and void and consequent declaration that the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Rules made thereunder shall apply to the State of Assam?

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 (IMDT Act).
2. Applicability of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and related rules to the State of Assam.
3. Discriminatory nature of the IMDT Act against the residents of Assam.
4. Effectiveness of the IMDT Act in detecting and deporting illegal migrants.
5. Impact of the IMDT Act on national security and demographic changes in Assam.
6. Violation of Article 14 and Article 355 of the Constitution of India by the IMDT Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutional Validity of the IMDT Act:
The Supreme Court examined the IMDT Act's provisions, which were challenged as being ultra vires the Constitution. The Court found that the IMDT Act's procedures were cumbersome and ineffective compared to the Foreigners Act, 1946. The IMDT Act lacked a provision similar to Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, which places the burden of proof on the person claiming to be an Indian citizen. This omission made it difficult to identify and deport illegal migrants, thereby negating the constitutional mandate under Article 355, which obligates the Union to protect states against external aggression and internal disturbances.

2. Applicability of the Foreigners Act, 1946 to Assam:
The Court declared that the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Rules made thereunder should apply to Assam. The IMDT Act was found to be ineffective in dealing with the issue of illegal migrants in Assam. The Court emphasized that the Foreigners Act provided a more effective mechanism for identifying and deporting illegal migrants.

3. Discriminatory Nature of the IMDT Act:
The petitioner argued that the IMDT Act discriminated against the residents of Assam by making it more difficult for them to secure the detection and deportation of illegal migrants compared to other states. The Court agreed, noting that the IMDT Act's classification lacked a rational nexus with its objective and thus violated Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.

4. Effectiveness of the IMDT Act:
The Court found that the IMDT Act's stringent and time-consuming procedures made it virtually impossible to identify and deport illegal migrants. The statistical data showed that despite initiating inquiries in over 310,000 cases, only 10,015 persons were declared illegal migrants, and a mere 1,481 were physically expelled. This demonstrated the Act's ineffectiveness compared to the Foreigners Act, under which West Bengal deported 489,046 illegal migrants between 1983 and 1998.

5. Impact on National Security and Demographic Changes:
The Court highlighted the serious implications of illegal migration from Bangladesh on Assam's demographic composition and national security. The presence of a large number of illegal migrants had changed the demographic character of Assam, contributing to insurgency and internal disturbances. The Court noted that this situation amounted to "external aggression" and "internal disturbance," necessitating the Union's intervention under Article 355.

6. Violation of Article 14 and Article 355:
The IMDT Act was found to violate Article 14 due to its discriminatory application to Assam without a rational basis. Additionally, the Act contravened Article 355, as it failed to protect Assam from external aggression and internal disturbances. The Court held that the IMDT Act was unconstitutional and struck it down, along with the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Rules, 1984.

Judgment:
The Supreme Court declared the IMDT Act and the Rules made thereunder as ultra vires the Constitution and struck them down. The Court directed that all cases pending under the IMDT Act be transferred to Tribunals constituted under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. The Court also directed the respondents to constitute a sufficient number of Tribunals to effectively deal with cases of illegal migrants in Assam. All appeals pending before the Appellate Tribunal were deemed to have abated.

← Previous Next →