New Delhi, May 10— The Supreme Court on Thursday said it could possibly look into releasing illegal immigrants held in Assam detention centres, on the condition that they assure their availability for legal proceedings, as and when required.
A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Sanjiv Khanna asked advocate Prashant Bhushan, amicus curiae in the matter, to come up with suitable conditions imposed on these detenues post their release. Bhushan was asked to inform the court of these on Friday.
The court said it needs to impose such conditions that people can be traced and their availability ensured before authorities concerned, while asking the Assam government to work on the overall framework of setting up tribunals and ensuring speedy trials for the illegal immigrants.
Bhushan indicated at a possibility of monthly reporting at police stations concerned, and their guarantors assuring their presence whenever required.
Exploring the options of what can be done if the detenues do not show up, the bench queried what action can be taken, besides forfeiture of the bond amount furnished by the guarantors.
As Bhushan said that such detenues can be sent to jail, the bench asked him under which provision could this be done.
Regarding the functioning of the foreigners tribunal, the court told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to file an affidavit on the availability of retired judicial officers, bureaucrats and advocates with certain years of experience, who could be taken on board as presiding officers.
Mehta also told the court that Gauhati High Court has been engaged in doubling the foreigners tribunals in the state from 100 to 200.
Harsh Mander Was Removed as Petitioner from Assam Detention Centres Case Last Week When He Sought Recusal of CJI Ranjan Gogoi
Today’s is the first big development in the Assam detention centres case in the last one week since the top court removed petitioner of the case and eminent human rights activist Harsh Mander and appointed Legal Services Authority as petitioner and senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan as amicus curiae on May 2.
Mander had filed a petition seeking recusal of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi from the Assam detention centres case. His plea was dismissed by the Supreme Court as the Chief Justice refused to recuse himself from hearing the case. Mander had sought CJI’s recusal claiming that some of his observations during the hearings in the case in the recent past could affect the final judgment in the case. He had sought his recusal “in the interest of justice, in the larger interest of the institution.”
He submitted that he had filed the original petition regarding detention centres seeking “the compassion, humanity and the commitment of Supreme Court in upholding international Human rights regimes as well as its own tradition of safeguarding and guaranteeing human rights enshrined in India’s Constitution for all human beings not just its own citizens.”
But, he said, “The Statements made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court have been used by political parties to target the State of Assam and create an atmosphere of bias against the alleged foreigners by seeking their indefinite detention and deportation.” Mander went ahead seeking CJI’s recusal.
“It is respectfully submitted that even if the decision is likely to be influenced subconsciously due to the following reasons, as apprehended genuinely by the Applicant, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi may recuse himself in the interest of justice,” read the petition according to a report in Livelaw.in
At this, CJI said, “What if we say that you have been set up by the Govt of Assam to file this application seeking recusal of the Chief Justice of India. How will you defend yourself?” quotes Bar & Bench in a report.
The CJI further told Mander: “When Court debate takes place, a judge says a lot of things to test the waters. What was said in the debate was misinterpreted by you as the opinion of the Judge. The opinion of the judge is reflected in the Court’s order. The main prayer is still pending before this court. How can you form an opinion that this Court has decided on the issue? Is this fair? That is why you should not have become a lawyer yourself. You should have kept the lawyer.”
The CJI asked Mander to trust judges.
“There are Oral observations in hundreds of cases as part of the debate…You are unaware (of the realities). That is why you shouldn’t become a lawyer yourself. This is why we don’t allow laypeople to get into the intricacies of proceedings…Learn to Trust your judges! The day you don’t trust your judges, you’ve had it!”, reflected the Chief Justice.
— With Inputs From IANS
