Holding

Delay or laches alone is insufficient to dismiss a petition under Article 32 when the enforcement of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty is at stake.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined writ petitions filed under Article 32 challenging the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which was inserted to give effect to the Assam Accord. The petitioners, representing the people of Assam, argued that illegal migration from Bangladesh threatened the sovereignty, integrity, life, liberty and culture of Assamese citizens, violating Articles 21, 29, 14, 355, 325 and 326 of the Constitution. The Court held that delay or laches cannot, by itself, bar a petition seeking enforcement of fundamental rights, especially the right to life and personal liberty, and therefore refused to dismiss the petitions on that ground. It referred the substantial constitutional questions to a larger bench, declared Section 6A valid until such a decision, and issued detailed directions for border fencing, road construction, flood‑lighting, strengthening of Foreigners Tribunals, and a timetable for updating the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam.

Issues considered

Whether Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 is constitutionally valid.
Whether delay or laches can be a ground for dismissing an Article 32 petition involving fundamental rights.
Whether the influx of illegal migrants constitutes external aggression under Article 355.
Whether Section 6A violates Articles 10, 11, 14, 21, 29, 325 and 326 of the Constitution.
Whether the special provisions for Assam discriminate against other border states.
Whether the mechanisms for detection, deportation and the NRC update are constitutionally adequate.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Citizenship ActSection 6AArticle 32Fundamental rightsDelayLachesAssam AccordIllegal migrantsBorder fencingForeigners TribunalNational Register of CitizensConstitutional validityArticle 21Article 14Article 29Article 355

Judgment

[2014] 14 S.C.R. 744

A ASSAM SANMILITAMAHASANGHA& ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 562 of 2012)
B
DECEMBER 17, 2014
[RANJAN GOGOi AND ROHINTON FALi NARIMAN, JJ.]
Citizenship Act, 1955: s. 6A (as inserted by Amendment
Act in 1985 to give effect to the Assam Accord dated
C 15.8.1985) - Constitutional validity of- The questions as
regards constitutional validity of s:6A are substantial
questions as to interpretation of the Constitution - Hence,
need to be decided by a minimum of 5 Judges - Therefore,
. the questions referred to larger Bench-' However, since s. 6A
D is valid until the Constitution Bench decides the matter, in
view of the facts of the case, it is necessary to issue
appropriate directions to ensure that effective steps are taken
to prevent illegal access to the country; to detect foreigners
belonging to the stream of 1.1.1966 to 24. 7. 1971 so as to
E give effect tothe provisions of ss.6(3) and 6(4) and to detect
and deport all illegal migrants who have come to the State of
Assam after 25.3.1971- Constitution of India-Arts. 5 and 6
- Foreigners Act, 1946- Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam)
Act, 1950 - Assam Accord dated 15.8.1985 - Foreigners
F Tribunal Order of 1964.
Delay/Laches - Petition u!Art.32 of the Constitution -
Whether can be dismissed on the ground of delay/laches -
Held: When it comes to violations of the fundamental right to
life and personal liberty, delay or /aches by itself would not
G be sufficient to shut the doors of the court on any petitioner-
The present petition is representing the entire population of
State ofAssam, alleging invasion on sovereignty and integrity
of India by the illegal migrants of a neighbouring country -
These influx giving rise to periodic clashes resulting in ·
H
744
ASSAM SANMILITAMAHASANGHA& ORS. v. UNION OF 745
INDIA&ORS.

violation of Articles 21 and 29 of the Constitution - It is also A
alleged that Arts. 14 of the Constitution continues to be
violated as s.6A(3) to (5) of the Citizenship Act (Constitutional
validity whereof is challenged in the petition) are not time
barred, but are ongoing - Such a petition cannot .be
dismissed at threshold on the ground of /aches- Constitution B
oflndia-Arts. 32, 14, 21, 29and355-CitizenshipAct, 1955
-s.6A.
Referring certain questions to a Bench of five
Judges, issuing directions to the Union of India and State
of Assam, and adjourning the matter, the Court C
HELD: 1.1 With the developments in law, Article 21
has been given its new dimension, and pursuant to the
new dimension a huge number of rights have come
under the umbrella of Article 21. It has been conclusively 0
held that all fundamental rights cannot be waived. In
view of these important developments in the law, the time
has come for this Court to say that at least when it comes
to violations of the fundamental right to life and personal
liberty, delay or lac hes by itself without more, would not E
be sufficient to shut the doors of the court on any
petitioner. [Para 32][182-F-H]
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1978 (2)
SCR 621 : (1978) 1 SCC 248 ; Tilokchand
Motichand v. H.B. Munshi (1969) 1 SCC 110 ; F
Kap ii a Hingorani v. State of Bihar 2003 (1) Suppl.
SCR 175: (2003) 6 SCC 1 ; Olga Tellis & Ors. v.
Bombay Municipal Corporation 1985 (2) Suppl.
SCR 51 : (1985) 3 SCC 545- referred to.
1.2 In the present case, the petitioners in the various G
writ petitions represent an entire people - the tribal and
non-tribal population of the State of Assam. In their
petition, they have raised a plea that the sovereignty and
integrity of India is itself at stake as a massive influx of
H
746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A illegal migrants from a neighbouring country h~s affected
this core Constitutional value. Such an influx is "external
aggression" within the meaning of Article 355 of the
Constitution of India. As a result of this huge influx,
periodic clashes have been taking place betWeen the
B citizens of India and these migrants, resulting into loss
of life and property, sounding in a violation of Articles 21
and 29 of the Constitution of the Assamese people as a
whole. Not only is there an assault on the life of the
citizenry of the State of Assam but there is an assault on
C their way of life as well. The culture of an entire people is
being eroded in such a way that they will ultimately be
swamped by persons who have no right to continue to
live in this country. It has also been pleaded that Article·
14 also continues to be violated as Section GA (3) to (5)
o of Citizenship Act are not time bound but are ongoing.
In view of these facts, petitions of this kind cannot be
dismissed atthe threshold on the ground of delay/laches.
[Paras 30, 31][781-D-H; 782-A-C]
Rabindranath Bose & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
E 1970 (2) SCR 697: (1970) 1 sec 84 ;
Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar v. State of
Maharashtra 1974 (2) SCR 216: (1974) 1 SCC
317; Express Publication (Madurai) Ltd. v. Union
of India 2004 (2) SCR 1098 : (2004) 11 SCC 526;
F TK. Dingal v. State of West Bengal 2008 (15)
SCR 194 : (2009) 1 SCC 768 ; Bangalore City
Co-operative Housing Society v. State of
Karnataka 2012 (3) SCR 295: (2012) 3 SCC 727
- referred to.
G 2. The following questions need to be answered by
an appropriate Bench, as most of them are substantial
questions as to the interpretation of the Constitution,
which have to be decided by a minimum of 5 ·Judges
under Article 145(3). The questions are as follows:
H
ASSAM SANMILITAMAHASANGHA& ORS. v. UNION OF 747
INDIA&ORS.

{i) Whether Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution of A
India permit the enactment of Section GA of the
Citizenship Act in as much as Section GA, in prescribing
a cut-off date different from the cut-off date prescribed
in Article G, can do so without a "variation" of Article G
itself; regard, in particular, being had to the phraseology B
of Article 4 {2) read with Article 3G8 {1) of the Constitution?
{ii) Whether Section 6A violates Articles 325 and 326
of the Constitution in that it has diluted the political rights
of the citizens of the State of Assam;
c
(iii) What is the scope of the fundamental right
contained in Article 29(1)? Is the fundamental right
absolute in its terms? In particular, what is the meaning
of the expression "culture" and the expression
"conserve"? Whether Section SA violates Article 29(1 )?
0
{iv) Whether Section GA violates Article 355? What
is the true interpretation of Article 355 of the
Constitution? Would an influx of illegal migrants into a
State of India constitute "external aggression" and/or
"internal disturbance"? Does the expression "State" E
occurring in this Article refer only to a territorial region
or does it also include the people living in the State,
which would include their culture and identity?
(v) Whether Section 6A violates Article 14 in that, it
singles out Assam from other border States (which F
comprise a distinct class) and discriminates against it.
Also whether there is no rational basis for having a
separate cut-off date for regularizing illegal migrants who
enter Assam as opposed to the rest of the country; and
G
(vi) Whether Section GA violates Article 21 in that
the lives and personal liberty of the citizens of Assam
have been affected adversely by the massive influx of
illegal migrants from Bangladesh.
H
748 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A (vii) Whether delay is a factor that can be taken into
account in moulding relief under a petition filed under
Article 32 of the Constitution?
(viii) Whether, after a large number of migrants from
East Pakistan. have enjoyed rights as Citizens of India
B for over 40 years, any relief can be given in the petitions
filed in the present cases?
(ix) Whether section GA violates the basic premise
of the Constitution and the Citizenship Act in that it
c permits Citizens who have allegedly not lost their
Citizenship of East Pakistan to become deemed Citizens
of India, thereby conferring dual Citizenship to such
persons?
(x) Whether section GA violates the fundamental
D basis of section 5(1) proviso and section 5(2) of the
Citizenship Act (as it stood in 1985) in that it permits a
class of migrants to become deemed Citizens of India
without any reciprocity from Bangladesh and without
taking the oath of allegiance to the Indian Constitution?
E (xi) Whether the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam)
Act, 1950 being a special enactment qua immigrants into
Assam, alone can apply to migrants from East Pakistan/
Bangladesh to the exclusion of th!l general Foreigners
Act and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 19G4 made
F thereunder?
.(xii) Whether Section GA violates the Rule of Law in
that it gives way to political expediency and not to
Government according to law?
G (xiii) Whether Section GA violates fundamental
· rights in that no mechanism is provided to determine
which persons are ordinarily resident in Assam since the
dates of their entry into Assam, thus granting deemed

H
ASSAM SANMILITA MAHASANGHA & ORS. v. UNION OF 749
INDIA&ORS.

citizenship to such persons arbitrarily? [Para 33] A
[783-B-H; 783-A-H; 785-A-C]
3.1 The statement of objects and reasons for the
enactment of Section 6A states, that, the said Section
was inserted into the statute book in 1985 to implement
one part of the Assam Accord dated 15'" August, 1985. B
Whereas a part of paragraph 5 of the Accord has been
fully implemented by enacting Section 6A, precious little
has been done by the Union of India and the State of
Assam to implement the other parts of the Accord. It is
evident from the White Paper on the Foreigners Issue C
. dated 20'" October, 2012, prepared by the State of Assam
that even -as on October 20, 2012, very little has been
done to implement paragraphs 5(part), 6, 9 and 10 of the
Assam Accord. The number of tribunals set up is
abysmally low resulting in an abysmally low number of D
decisions by these tribunals. Whereas almost 1,50,000 ·
persons were deported between 1961 to 1965 under The
Immigrants (Expulsion of Assam) Act, 1950, the number
of deportations from 1985 till date is stated to be a mere
2,000 odd. Even these deportees .are mostly, if not all, E
"push backs" which results in the same deportees
coming back, post deportation from a border which is
completely porous. [Paras 35, 37, 38, 39][785-E-F;
787-G-H; 788-A; 795-G-H; 807-G-H; 808-A-B] .
F
3.2 In the light of the above position, it is necessary
to issue appropriate directions to the Union of India and
the.State of Assam to ensure that effective steps are taken
to prevent illegal access to the country from Bangladesh;
to detect foreigners belonging to the stream of 1.1.1966 G
to 24.3.1971 so as to give effect to the provisions of
Section 6(3) & (4) of the Citizenship Act and to detect
and deport all illegal migrants who have come to the State
of Assam afte~ 25.3.1971. [Para 42][808-E-G]

H
750 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A 3.3 The Union and the State are broadly in
agreement in respect of the steps that are required to be
taken, as well as the action taken till date and further the
measures that are required to be taken in the future. On
an overall consideration of the immediate dimensions
B of the issues and the pc;>tential that the same have for
the future, direct.ions under Article 142 of the
Constitution, in respect of Border fencing, Border Roads
and provision for flood lights; making Foreigners
Tribunals functional; and regarding existing Mechanism.
C of Deportation of Declared Illegal Migrants in view the
requirements of international protocol, Union of India
to enter into necessary discussions with the Government
of Bangladesh to streamline the procedure of
deportation. [Para 42, 46][815-G~H; 816-E-F; 817-B-C]
D 4. Insofar as Writ Petition (C) No. 274/2009 is
concerned, on and from the date of this judgment, the
time schedule as given in this judgment should govern
the work of updating of the NRC in Assam so that the
entire updated NRC is published by the end of January,
E 2016. [Para 48][817-DcF]
CASE LAW REFERENCE
1978 (2) SCR 621 referred to. Para 32
2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 175 referred to. Para 32
F
1985 (2) Suppl. SCR 51 referred to. Para 32
(1969) 1 sec 110 referred
. to. Para 22
1970 (2) SCR 697 referred to. Para 25

G 1974 (2) SCR 216 referred to. Para 26
2004 (2) SCR 1098 referred to. Para 27
2008 (15) SCR 194 referred to. · Para 28
2012 (3) SCR 295 referred to. Para 29
H
ASSAM SANMILITAMAHASANGHA& ORS. v. UNION OF 751
INDIA&ORS.

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No. A
562 of 2012.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
With
Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 876/2014 and 274/2009. B
Neeraj Kishan Kaul, ASG, Kamal Nayan Chaudhari,
Jaideep Gupta, Salman Khurshid, Soli Sorabjee, Rakesh
Khanna, Ashok Panda, Sr. Advs., Krishna Sarma, AAG, Manish
Goswami, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Shiv Mangal Sharma, C
Sanyat Lodha, Raghvendra Bajaj, Vivek Mohanty, Saurabh
Rajpal, Ms. Anjali Chauhan, Shrey Kapoor, Ms. Sushma Suri,
Avijit Roy, Navnit Kumar (for Mis. Corporate Law Group), B.
Krishna Prasad, F_uzailAhmadAyyubi, Gulfeshan, Ms.Anjana
Mathur Gupta, Abdul Qadir, Anas Tanvir Siddiqui, Aziz Ur-
0
Rehman, Mustafa Khaddim, lmtiaz, Syed Ali Ahmad, Syed
Tanweer Ahmad, S.S. Bandyopadhyay, Mohan Pandey, Mohit
D. Ram, Shadan Farasat, ShakilAhmed Syed, Uzmi Jamil,
Tabrez, Shibashi~h Misra, Milan Laskar, Mohd. Parvez Dabas, .
Syed Mehdi Imam, Prateek Jalan, Ms. Malvika Trivedi, Rahul
Kriplani, Ankit Yadav, T. Mahipal, G. S. Chatterjee, Abhinav E
Mukherjee, Gaurav Sharma, Ms. Sukhbeer Kaur Bajwa,
Shreekant N. Terdal, Advs. for the Appearing Parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. F. NARIMAN, J. F
1. A Prophet is without honour in his own country.
Substitute 'citizen' for 'prophet' and you will get the gist of the
various writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution
of India assailing Section 6Aofthe Citizenship Act.
G
2. It all began when the Burmese ceded Assam to the
British on 24'" February, 1826 as per the treaty of Yandabo,
thus bringing to an end Ah om rule in Assam which had begun
sometime in the 131"·century. The British annexed Assam
and placed it as an administrative unit of the Bengal Province. H
752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A As early as 1931, C.S. Mullan, the Census Superintendent in
his census report stated:
"Probably the most important event in the province
during the last 25 years- an event, moreover, which
seems likely to alter permanently the whole feature of
B Assam and to destroy the whole structure ofAssamese
culture and civilization has been the invasion of a vast
horde of /and-hungry immigrants mostly Muslims, from
the districts of E as! Bengal. ... wheresoever the carcass,
there the vultures wi!I gathered together " (Politics of
c Migration by Dr. Manju Singh, Anita Publications,
Jaipur, 1990, Page 59)
3. In 1935, when the Government of India Act was
promulgated ,Assam was, under Section 46(1 ), stated to be a
0 Governor's province. It was in this scenario that the Foreigners
Act of 1946 was enacted under which the burden of proving
whether a person is or is not a foreigner lies upon such person.
At the commencement of the Constitution of India, Article 5
stated that every person who has his domicile in the territory
E of India and who was either born in the territory of India; or
either of whose parents were born in the territory of India; or
who has been ordinarily resident in the territory of India for not
less than 5 years immediately preceding such commencement
shall be a citizen of India. As an exception, Article 6, which is
F important forthe determination of some of the questions arising
in these writ petitions, states as follows:
"Rights of citizenship of certain persons who have
migrated to India from Pakistan. -Notwithstanding
anything in Article 5, a person who has migrated to the
G territory of India from the territory now included in Pakistan
shall be deemed to be a citizen of India at the
commencement of thi.s Constitution if
(a) he or either of his parents or any of his grand-parents
was born in India as defined in the Government of India
H Act, 1935 (as originally enacted); and
ASSAM SANMILITAMAHASANGHA& ORS. v. UNION OF 753
INDIA & ORS. [R. F. NARI MAN, J.]

(b)(i) in the case where such person has so migrated A
before the nineteenth day of July, 1948, he has been
ordinarily resident in the territory of India since the date
of his migration, or
(ii) in the case where such person has so migrated on or
after the nineteenth day of July, 1948 , he has been 8
registered as a citizen of India by an officer appointed in
that behalf by the Government of the Dominion of India
on an application made by him therefor to such officer
before the commencement of this Constitution in the form
and manner prescribed by that Government: Provided C
that no person shall be so registered unless he has been
resident in the territory of India or at least six months
immediately preceding the date of his application."
4. 19'" July, 1948, therefore, became the baseline for 0
such persons as were referred to in Article 6 for being citizens
of India.
5. At this stage, the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam)
Act, 1950 was enacted to protect the indigenous inhabitants
of Assam. The statement of objects and reasons of this Act E
says
"during the last few months a serious situation had arisen
from the immigration of a very large number of East Bengal
residents into Assam. Such large migration is disturbing-the
economy of the province, besides giving rise to a serious law F
and order problem. The bill seeks to confer necessary powers
on the Central Government to deal with the situation."
6. In pursuance of this object, Sections 2 and 4 of this
Act which also have a bearing on some of ttie issues raised in . G
these petitions state as follows:
"2. Power to order expulsion of certain immigrants.-
If the Central Government is of opinion that any person
or class of persons, having been ordinarily resident in
any place outside India, has or have, whether before or H
..
754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A after the commencement of this Act, come into Assam
and that the stay of such person or class of persons in
Assam is detrimental to the interests of the general public
of India or of any section thereof or of any Sclieduled
Tribe in Assam, the Central Government may by order-
B (a) direct such person or class of persons to remove
himself or themselves from india or Assam within such
time and by such route as may be specified in the order;· .
and

c (b) give such further directions in regard to his or their
removal from India or Assam as it may consider
necessary or expedient;
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to any
person who on account of civil disturbances or the fear
D of such disturbances in any area now forming part of
Pakistan has been displaced from or has left his place
of residence in such area and who has been
subsequently residing in Assam.
4. Power to give effect orders, etc.-
E
Any authority empowered by or in pursuance of the
provisions of this Act to exercise any power may, in
addition to any other action expressly provided for in this
Act, take or cause to be taken .such steps, and use or
F cause to be used such force, as may in its opinion be
reasonably necessary for the effective exercise of such
power."
7. It was during the census of 1951 that a National
Register of Citizens was prepared under a directive of the
G Ministry of Home Affairs containing information village-wise of
each and every person enumerated therein. Details such as
the number and names of persons, the houses or holdings
belonging to them, father's name or husband's name,
nationality, age, the means of livelihood were all indicated
1-j therein.
ASSAM SANMILITAMAHASANGHA& ORS. v. UNION OF 755
INDIA& ORS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

.8. Between 1948 and 1971, there were large scale A
migrations from East Pakistan to Assam. As is well known,
West Pakistan commenced hostilities against East Pakistan
on 25'" March, 1971 culminating in the war which
dismembered the two parts of Pakistan and in which a new ·
nation, Bangladesh, was born. It is interesting to note that B
immediately after the successful culmination of the war in
Bangladesh, on 19'" March, 1972, a treaty for friendship, co-
operation and peace was signed between India and
Bangladesh. Article 8 of the said treaty is in the following terms:
"In accordance with the ties of friendship existing between C
the two countries each of the High Contracting Parties
solemnly declares that it shall not enter into or participate
in any military alliance directed against the other party.
Each of the High Contracting Parties shall refrain from
any aggression against the other party and shall not allow D
the use of its territory for committing any act that may
cause military damage to or constitute a threat to the
security of the other High Contracting Party"
9. Given the continuing influx of illegal migrants from E
Bangladesh into Assam, the All Assam Students Union first
submitted a memorandum to the then Prime Minister of India
(in 1980) inviting her urgent attention to this issue. As a result
of such representations, Parliament enacted the Illegal
Migrants (Determination by Tribunal) Act, 1983. ThisActwas F
made applicable only to Assam and was expected to be a
measure which speeded up the determination of illegal
migrants in the State of Assam with a view to their deportation.
10. Not being satisfied with this parliamentary measure,
and in view of large scale agitations in the State of Assam, an G
accord was signed known as the "Assam Accord" on 15'"
August, 1985 between the AASU, AAGSP and the Central and
the State Governments. This Accord is worth quoting in
extenso:
H
756 - SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A "ASSAM ACCORD
15th August, 1985
(Accord between AASU, AAGSP, Central and State
Government on the Foreigner Problem Issue)
B - MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT
1. Government have all along been most anxious to find.
a satisfactory solution to the problem of Foreigners in
Assam. The All Assam Students' Union (AASU) and the
All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad (AAGSP) have also
c expressed their Keenness to find such a solution.
2. The AASU through their Memorandum dated 2nd
February, 1980 presented to the Late Prime Minister
Smt. Indira Gandhi, conveyed their profound sense of _
D apprehensions regarding the continuing influx of foreign
nationals into Assam and the fear about adverse affects
upon the political, social. cultural and economic life of
the State.
3. Being fully alive to the genuine apprehensions of the
E people of Assam, the then Prime Minister initiated the
dialogue with the AASU/AAGSP. Subsequently, talks
were held at the Prime Minister's and Home Ministers
yplevels during the period 1980-83. Several rounds of
informal talks were held during 1984. Formal discussions
F were resumed in March, 1985.
4. Keeping all aspects of the problem including
constitutional and legal provision, international
agreements, national commitments and humanitarian
considerations, it has been dedded to proceed as
G
follows:-
Foreigners Issue:
5.

H
ASSAM SANMILITA MAHASANGHA & ORS. v. UNION OF . 757
!NOIA &ORS. [R. F. NARI MAN, J.]

1. For purpose of detection and deletion of foreigners, A
1-1-1966 shall be the base date and year.
2. All persons who came to Assam prior to 1-1-1966,
including those amongst them whose names appeared
on the electoral rolls used in 1967 elections, shall be
regularized. B
3. Foreigners who came to Assam after 1-1-1966
(inclusive) and upto 24th March, 1971 shall be detected
in accordance with the provisions of the Foreigners Act,
1946 and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1939. c
4. Names of foreigners so detected will be deleted from
the electoral rolls in force. Such persons will be required
to register themselves before the Registration Officers
of the respective districts in accordance with the
provisions of the Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939 D
and the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1939.
5. For this purpose, Government of India will undertake
suitable strengthening of the governmental machinery.
6. On the expiry of the period of ten year following the E
date of detection, the names of all such persons which
have been deleted from the electoral rolls shall be
restored.
7. All persons who were expelled earlier, but have since
re-entered illegally into Assam, shall be expelled. F
8. Foreignerswho came to Assam on or after March 25.
1971 shall continue to be detected. deleted and expelled
in accordance with the law. Immediate and practical
steps shall be taken to expel such foreigners.
G
9. The Government will give due consideration to certain
difficulties express by the AASU/AAGSP regarding the
implementation of the Illegal Migrants (Determination by
Tribunals) Act, 1983.
H
758· SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A Safeguards and Economic Develop.ment:
6. Constitutional, legislative and administrative
safeguards. as may be appropriate. shall be provided
to protect. preserve and promote the cultural. social,
linguistic identity and heritage of the Assamese people.
B
7. The Government takes this opportunity to renew their
commitment for the speedy all round economic
development of Assam, so as to improve the standard
of living of the people. Special emphasis will be placed
c on the educati.on and Science & Technology through
establishment of national institutions.
Other Issues:
8.
D 1. The Government will arrange for the issue of
citizenship certificate in future only by the authorities of
the Central Government.
2. Specific complaints that may be made bytheAASU/
AAGSP about irregular issuance of Indian Citizenship
E Certificates (ICC) will be looked into.
9.
1. The international border shall be made secure against
future infiltration by erection of physical barriers like walls
F barbed wire fencing and other obstacles at appropriate
places. Patrolling by security forces on land and riverine
routes all along the international border shall be
adequately intensified. In order to further strengthen the
security arrangements, to prevent ijbeffectively future
G infiltration, an adequate number of check posts shall be
setup.
2. Besides the arrangements mentioned above and
keeping in view security considerations, a road all along
the international border shall be constructed so as to
H facilitate patrolling by security forces. Land between
ASSAM SANMILITA MAHASANGHA & ORS. v. UNION OF 759
INDIA &ORS. [R. F. NARI MAN, J.]

border and the road would be kept free of human A
habitation, wherever possible. Riverine patrolling along
the international border would be intensified. All effective
measures would be adopted to prevent infiltrators
crossing or attempting to cross the international bor~er.
10. It will be ensured that relevant laws for prevention of B
encroachment of government lands and lands in tribal
belts and blocks are strictly enforced and unauthorized
encroachers evicted as laid down under such laws.
11. It will be ensured thatthe law restricting acquisition c
of immovable property by foreigners in Assam is strictly
enforced.
12. It will be ensured that Birth and Death Registers are
duly maintained.
Restoration of Normalcy:
D

13. The All Assam Students Unions (AASU) and the All
Assam Gana Sang ram Paris had (AAGSP) call off the
agitation, assure full co-operation and dedicate
themselves towards the development of the Country. E
14. The Central and the State Government have agreed
to:
1. Review with sympathy and withdraw cases of
disciplinary action taken against employees in the context
of the agitation and to ensure thatthere is no victimization; F·
2. Frame a scheme for ex-gratia payment to next of kin
of those who were killed in the course in the agitation.
3. Give sympathetic cons·ideration to proposal for
relaxation of upper age limit for employment in public G
service in Assam, having regard to exceptional situation
that prevailed in holding academic and competitive
examinations etc. in the context of agitation in Assam:

H
760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A 4. Undertake review of detention cases, if any, as well
as cases against persons charged with criminal offences
in connection with \he agitation; except those charged
with commission of heinous offences.
5. Consider withdrawal of the prohibitory orders/
B notifications in force, if any:
I
15. The Ministry of Home Affairs will be the nodal Ministry
for the implementation of the a_bove.
Sd/- Sd/-
c (P.K. Mahanta) (R.D. Pradhan)
President Home Secretary
All Assam Students' Union Government of India
Sd/- Sd/-
D
(B.K. Phukan) (Smt. P. P. Trivedi)
•
General Secretary Chief Secretary
'All Assam Students' Union Government of
E Assam
Sd/-
(Biraj Sharma)
Convenor
F All Assam Students' Union
In the Presence of
Sd/-
(Rajiv Gandhi)
G
Prime Minister of
India
Date: 15th August, 1985
Place: New Delhi"
H
ASSAM SANMILITAMAHASANGHA& ORS. v. UNION OF 761
INDIA& ORS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

11. It was in pursuance of this accord that Section 6A A
was inserted in the Citizenship Act in 1985. The Statement of
Objects and Reasons of the Act specifically states that it is
legislation required to give effect to the Assam Accord. Section
6A states as follows:
"6A. Special provisions as to citizenship of persons 8
covered by the Assam Accord.-·
(1) For the purposes of this section-
(a) "Assam" means the territories included in the State
of Assam immediately before the commencement of the C
Citizenship (Amend-men!) Act, 1985;
(b) "detected to be a foreigner" means detected to be a
foreigner in accordance with the provisions of the
Foreigners Act, 1946 (31 of 1946) and the Foreigners
(Tribunals) Order, 1964 by a Tribunal constituted under D
the said Order;
(c) "specified territory" means the territories included in
Bangladesh immediately before the commencement of
the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985; E
(d) a person shall be deemed to be of Indian origin, if he,
or either of his parents or any of his grandparents was
born in undivided India;
(e) a person shall be deemed to have been detected to F
be a foreigner on the date on which a Tribunal constituted
under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 submits its
opinion to the effect.that he is a foreigner to the officer or
authority concerned.
(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (6) and (7), G
all persons of Indian origin who came before the 1st day
of January, 1966 to Assam from the specified territory
(including such of those whose names were included in
the electoral rolls used for the purposes of the General
Election to the House of the People held in 1967) and H
762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 14 S.C.R.

A who have been ordinarily resident in Assam since the
dates of their entry into Assam shall be deemed to be
..
citizens of India as from the 1st day of January, 1966 .
(3) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (6) and (7),
every person of Indian origin who-
B
(a) came to Assam on or after the 1st day of January,
1966 but before the 25th day of March, 1971 from the
specified territory; and
(b) has, since the date of his entry into Assam, been
c ordinarily resident in Assam; and
(c) has been detected to be a foreigner,
shall register himself in accordance with the rules made
by the Central Government in this behalf under section
D 18 with such authority (thereafter in this sub-section
referred to as the registering authority) as may be
specified in such rules and if his name is included in any
electoral roll for any Assembly or Parliamentary
constituency in force on the date of such detection, his
name shall be deleted therefrom.
Explanation.-ln the case of every person seeking
registration under this sub-section, the opinion of the
Tribunal constituted under the Foreigners (Tribunals)
Order, .1964 holding such person to be a foreigner, shall
F be deemed to be sufficient proof of the requirement
under clause (c) of this sub-section and if any question
arises .as to whether such person complies with any other
requirement under this sue-section, the registering
authority shall,-
G (i) if such opinion contains a finding with respect to such
other requirement, decide the question in conformity with
such finding;
(ii) if such opinion does not contain a finding with respect
H to such other requirement, referthe question to a Tribunal
ASSAM SANMILITA MAHASANGHA & ORS. v. UNION OF 763
INDIA &ORS. [R. F. NARI MAN, J.]

constituted under the said Order having jurisdiction in A
accordance with such rules as the Central Government
may make in this behalf under section 18 and decide
· the question in conformity with the opinion received on
such reference. ••
(4) A person registered under sub-section (3) shall have, B
as from the date on which he has been detected to be a
foreigner and till the expiry of a period of ten years from
that date, the same rights and obligations as a citizen of
India (including the right to obtain a passport under the
Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967) and the obligations C
connected therewith), but shall not be entitled to have his
name included in any electoral roll for any Assembly or
Parliamentary constituency at any time before the expiry
of the said period of ten years.
D
(5) A person registered under sub-section (3) shall be
deemed to be a citizen of India for all purposes as from
the date of expiry of a period of ten years from the date
on which he has been detected to be a foreigner.
(6) Without prejudice to the provisions of section 8,- E
(a) if any person referred to in sub-section (2) submits in
the prescribed manner and form and to the prescribed
authority within sixty days from the date of
commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act,
1985, for year a declaration that he does not wish to be F
a citizen of India, such person shall not be deemed to
have become a citizen of India under that sub-section;
(b) If any person referred to in sub-section (3) submits in
the prescribed manner and form and to the prescribed G
authority within sixty days from the date of
commencement the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985,
for year or from the date on which he has been detected
to be a foreigner, whicheveris later, a declaration that he
· does not wish to be governed by the provisions of that H
764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A sub-section and sub-sections (4) and (5), it shall not be
necessary for such person to register himself under sub-
section (3).
Explanation.-\A(here a person required to file a
declaration under this sub-section does not have the
B capacity to enter into a contract, such declaration may
be filed on his behalf by any person competent under the
law for the time being in force to act on his behalf.
(7) Nothing in sub-sections (2) to (6) shal~ apply in relation
c to any person-
(a) who, immediately before the commencement of the
Citi~enship (Amendment) Act, 1985, for year is a citizen
of India;
(b) who was expelled from India ·before the
D commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act,
1985, for year under the Foreigners Act, 1946 (31 of
1946).
(8) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this section,
E the provisions of this section shall have effect
notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for
the time being in force."
12. It will be seen that as part of the Assam Accord, a
huge number of illegal migrants were made deemed citizens
F of India. It is interesting to note that Parliament has not enacted
any law pertaining to refugees from other countries. Refugee
status can be granted and has been granted in India through
executive orders passed.by the Central Government. In any
case, Section 6A did not merely rest content with granting
G refugee status to those who were illegal migrants from East
Pakistan but went on to grant them the benefit of citizenship
of India so that all persons who had migrated before 1966 and
all persons who migrated before 25'" March, 1971 respectively
were to become citizens of India either immediately or as is
H mentioned by the Act after a period of 10 years once there
ASSAM SANMILITA MAHASANGHA & ORS. v. UNION OF 765
INDIA &ORS. [R. F. NARI MAN, J.]

has been a determination that they have in fact settled in India A
between 1966 and 1971.
13. On 81h of November, 1998, Lieutenant General S.K.
Sinha, the then Governor of Assam, submitted an extensive
report to the then President of India on the grave threat posed
by the influx of people from Bangladesh to Assam. He said: B
"The dangerous consequences of large scale illegal
migration from Bangladesh, both for the people of Assam
and more for the Nation as a whole, need to be
empathetically stressed. No misconceived and mistaken c
notions of secularism should be allowed to come in the
way of doing so.
As a result of population movement from Bangladesh,
the spectre looms large of the indigenous people of
Assam being reduced to a minority in their home state. D
Their cultural survival will be in jeopardy, their political
control will be weakened and their employment
opportunities will be undermined.
The silent and invidious demographic invasion of Assam
may result in the loss of the geo-strategically vital districts E
of lower Assam. The influx of illegal migrants is turning
these districts into a Muslim majority region. It will then
only be a matter of time when a demand for their merger ·
with Bangladesh may be made. The rapid growth of
internationc1I Islamic fundamentalism may provide the F
driving force for this demand. In this context, it is pertinent
that Bangladesh has long discarded secularism and has
chosen to become an Islamic State. Loss of lower Assam
will severe the entire land mass of the North East, from
the rest of India and the rich natural resources of that G.
region will be lost to the Nation."
14. It was in this backdrop that a writ petition being Writ
Petition No. 131 of 2000 was filed by Sarbananda Sonowal
assailing the Constitutional validity of "The Illegal Migrants H
766 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983" and the rules made
thereunder. •
15. In a judgment reported in (2005) 5 SCC 665, this
Court referred to the Assam Accord and to the huge influx of
illegal migrants into the State of Assam and came to the
B · conclusion that the 1983Act and the rules made thereunder
operated in the reverse direction i.e. instead of seeing that
illegal migrants are deported, it did the opposite by placing
· the burden of proof on the State to prove that a person happens
to be an illegal migrant. This Court went on to hold that Article
C 355 of the Constitution had been violated, in as much as the
Union had failed to protect the State of Assam against the
external aggression and internal disturbance caused by the
huge influx of illegal migrants from Bangladesh to Assam and
went on to hold the 1983 Act to be violative of Article 14 as
D well. In as much as thisAct was struck down, the Immigrants
(Expulsion from Assam) Act 1950 together with the Foreigners
Act and the Foreigners Tribunal Order of 1964 were now to be
the tools in the hands of Government to do the job of detecting
illegal migrants who were then to be deported.
E
16. On 14'h July, 2004, in response to an unstarred
question pertaining to deportation of illegal Bangladeshi
migrants, the Minister of. State, Home Affairs, submitted a ·
statement to Parliament indicating therein that the estimated
F number of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants into India as on 31"
December, 2001 was 1.20 crores, out of which 50 lakhs were.
in Assam.
17. Given the magnitude of the problem, a Foreigners
(Tribunals for Assam) Order of 2006 was promulgated which
· G was again struck down being found to be unreasonable and
arbitrary and which instead of expeditiously discovering illegal
migrants and deporting them, again did the opposite. It was in
(2007) 1 SCC 174, in the second Sonowal writ petition, that
the Supreme Court struck down this order.
H
ASSAM SANMILITAMAHASANGHA& ORS. v. UNION OF 767
INDIA& ORS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

18. In the year 2012 and in 2014 large scale riots took A
place in Assam resulting in the deaths of a large number of ·
persons. It is in this background that the present writ petitions
have been filed.
· 19. A preliminary submission was urged by the learned
Additional Solicitor General of India Mr. Neeraj Kaul that Section B
6A having been enacted in 1985, a challenge made in 2012
would be barred by delay and laches. We will first advert to
this preliminary submission in order to see whether we will
proceed further to determine the issues raised in these writ
petitions. C
20. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 562 of 2012 which was taken
up by us first contains the following prayers:
"a) a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other
appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) declaring D
Section 6A of The Citizenship Act, 1955 as
discriminatory, arbitrary and illegal and consequently
striking down the impugned provision as ultra-vi res the
Constitution of India; ·
b) a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other E
appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s} directing the
respondent no.1 .and 3 not to update the National Register
of Citizens with respect to the State of Assam by taking
into account the electoral rolls prior to March 241h
(midnight) 1971; F
c) a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other
appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) directing the
respondent no 1 and 3 to update the National Register
of Citizens with respect to the State of Assam relying G
only on the details incorporated in the National Register
of Citizens prepared in 1951 ;
d) a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other
appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) directing the
H
768 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A respondents to treat 1951 as the base year for the
purpose of detection and deportation of illegal
immigrants in the State of Assam;
e) a writ in the nature of Mandamus or .any other
appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) directing-the
B respondents no 1 and 2 to immediately take effective
·steps towards ensuring the deportation of the illegal
immigrants from the territory of India;
f) Issue Rule Nisi in terms 6f prayers (a), (b), (c), (d) and
c (e) above;
g) Pass such other further or other writ, orders or
directions as your Lordships may deem fit and proper in
the facts and circumstances of the instant case."
21. Article 32 of the Constitution Which has been
D described as the "heart and soul" of the Constitution guarantees
the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of all
or any of the fundamental rights conferred by Part Ill of the
Constitution. This Article is, therefore, itself a fundamental right
and it is in this backdrop that we need to address the
E · preliminary submission.
22. In Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi (1969) 1
SCC 110, a Constitution Bench was asked to decide on the
Constitutional validity of Section 12A (4) oftheBombay Sales
F Tax Act. The precise ground for challenge was a violation of
Article 19(1 )(f) of the Constitution. A majority of three out of
five Judges held that the petition was hit by the doctrine of
!aches and hence dismissed the petition. In so holding, each
of the Judges arrived at diffe~ing reasons as.to why petitions
G under Article 32 ought to be dismissed on the ground of delay/
!aches. In paragraphs 9, 1Oand 11 Hidayatullah, C.J., held:
"9. In India we have the Limitation Act which
prescribes different periods of limitation for suits,
petitions or applications. There are. also residuary
H articles which prescnbe limitation in those cases where
ASSAM SANMILITA MAHASANGHA & ORS. v. UNION OF 769
INDIA& ORS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.] ·

no express period is provided. If it were a matter of a A
suit or application, either an appropriate article or the
residuary article would have applied. But a petition
under Article 32 is not a suit and it is also not a petition
or an application to which the Limitation Act applies. To
put curbs in the way of enforcement of Fundamental B
Rights through legislative action might well be
questioned under Article 13(3). The reason is also quite
clear. If a short period of limitation wer? prescribed the
Fundamental Right might well be frustrated. Prescribing
too long a period might enable stale claims to be made C
to the detriment of other rights which might emerge.
10. If then there is no period prescribed what is the.
standard for this Court to follow? I should say that utmost
expedition is the sine qua non for such claims. The
party aggrieved must move the Court at the earliest D
possible time and explain satisfactorily all semblance
of.delay. I am not indicating any period which may be
regarded as the ultimate limit of action for that would
be taking upon myself legislative functions. Jn England
a period of 6 months has been provided statutorily, but E
that could be because there is no guaranteed remedy
and the matter is one entirely of discretion. Jn India I will
only say that each case wi/I have to be considered on
its own facts. Where there is appearance of avoidable
delay and this delay affects the merits of the claim, this F
Court wi/I consider it and in a proper case hold the party
disentitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction.
_ 11. Therefore, the question is one of discretion for
this Court to follow from case to case. There is no lower
G
limit and there is no upper limit. A case may be brought
within Limitation Act by reason of some article but this
Court need. not necessarily give the total time to the
litigant to move this Court under Article 32. Similarly in
a suitable case this Court may entertain such a petition H
770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R. .

A even after a lapse of time. It will all depend on what the
breach of the Fundamental Right and the remedy
claimed are when and how the delay arose." ·
Justice Sikri held as follows:

B "18. It seems to me, however; that the above solution
is not quite appropriate foi petitions under Article 32. A
· delay of 12 years or 6 years would make a strange bed-
fellow with a direction or order or writ in the nature of
mandamus, certiorari and prohibition. Bearing in mind
c the history of these writs I cannot believe that the
Constituent Assembly had the intention that five Judges
of this Court should sit together to enforce a·
fundamental right at the instance of a person, who had
without any reasonable explanation slept over his rights
for 6 or 12 years. The history of these writs both in
D
England and the U.S.A. convinces me that the.
underlying idea of the Constitution was to provide an
expeditious and authoritative remedy against the
inroads of the State. If a claim is barred under the
Limitation Act, unless there are exceptional
E
circumstances, prima facie it is a stale claim and should
not be entertained by this Court. But even if it is not
barred under the Indian Limitation Act, it may not be
·entertained by this Court if on the facts of the case there
is unreasonable delay. For instance, if the State had
F
taken possession of property under a law alleged to be
void, and if a petitioner comes to this Court 11 years
after the possession was taken by the State, I would
dismiss the petition on the ground of delay, unless there
is some reasonable explanation. The fact that a suit for
G possession of land would still be in time would not be
relevant at all. It is difficult to lay down a preciseperiod
beyond which delay should be explained: I favour one
. · year because this Court should not be approached
lightly, ·and competent legal.advice should be taJ<.en and
H
ASSAM SANMILITAMAHASANGHA& ORS. v. UNION OF 771
INDIA& ORS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

pros and cons carefully weighed before coming to this A
Court. It is common knowledge that appeals and.
representations to the higher authorities take time; time ·
spent in pursuing these remedies may not be excluded
under the Limitation Act, but it may ordinarily be taken
as a good explanation for the delay. B
30. In my opinion the petitioner was under a mistake
of law, when he paid up, the mistake being that he
thought that Section 12-A(4) was a valid provision in
spite of its imposing unreasonable restrictions. This
mistake he discovered like all assessees when this C ..
court struck down Section 12-A(4) of the Bombay Sales
Tax Act. He has come to this Court within six months of
that day and there is no delay".
Bachawat J., held as follgws: o
"41. Similarly this Court acts on the analogy of the
statute of limitation in respect of a claim under Article
32 of the Constitution though such claim is not the
subject of any express statutory bar of limitation. If the
right to a property is extinguished by.prescription under E
Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the petitioner
has no subsisting right which can be enforced under
Article 32 (see Sobbraj Odhannal v. State of Rajasthan)
[(1963) Supp (1) SCR 99, 111]. In other cases where
. the remedy only and not the right is extinguished by F
/imitation, it is on grounds of the public policy that the
court refuses to entertain stale claims under Article 32.
The statutes of limitation are founded on sound
principles of public policy. As observed in Whitley
Stoke'sAnglo-lndian Codes, Vol. 11, p. 940; "The law is G
. '
founded on public policy, its aim being to secure the
quiet of the community, to suppress fraud ·and perjury, .
to quicken diligence, and to prevent oppression". Jn Her
Highness Ruckmaboye v. Luloobhoy
Mottickchund [(1851~52) 5 MIA 234, 251) the Privy H
772 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 14 S.C.R.

A Council observed that the object of the statutes of
limitation was to give effect to the maxim, "interest
reipublicoe ut sit finis /ilium" (co lift 303) the interest of
the State requires that there should be a limit to litigation.
The rule of res judicata is founded upon the same rule
B of public policy, see Daryao v. State of UP at p. 584.
The other ground ofpublic policy upon which the statutes
of ilmitation are founded is expressed in the maxim.
"vigilantibus non dormientibus jura sublieniunt" (2 Co
Inst. 690) the laws aid the vigilant and not those who
c slumber. On grounds of public policy the court applies
the principles of res judicata to writ petitions under Article
32. On like grounds the court acts on the analogy of the ·
statutes of limitation in the exercisf? of its jurisdiction
under Article 32. It follows that the present petition must
D be dismissed"
Mitter J., held as follows:
"66. In my view, a claim.based on the infraction of
fundamental rights ought not to be entertained if made
beyond the period fixed by the Limitation Act for the.
E
enforcement of the right by way of suit. While not holding.
that the Limitation Act applies in terms, I am of the view
that ordinarily the period fixed by the Limitation Act
should be taken to be a true measure of the time within
which a person ca'! be allowed to. raise a plea
F
successfully under Article 32 of the Constitution. "
The sole dissentientwas Hegde, J., who decided that
Article 32 itself being a fundamental right, there is no question
of delay being used to non-suit a petitioner at the threshold.
G His minority view is as follows:
"75. There has been some controversy whether an
aggrieved party can waive his fundamental right. That
question ·was elabqrately considered in Basheshar
Nath v. CIT, Delhi, Rajasthan [(1959) Supp (1) SCR
H
ASSAM SANMILITAMAHASANGHA& ORS. v. UNION OF 773
INDIA& ORS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

528] by a Constitution Bench consishng of S.R. Das, A
C.J., and Bhagwati, S.K. Das, J.L., Kapur and Subba
Rao, JJ. The learned Chief Justice and Kapur, J., held
that there could be no waiver of a fundamental right
founded on Article 14. Bhagwati and Subba Rao, JJ.,
held that no fundamental right can be waived and S.K. B
Das, J., held that only such fundamental rights which
are intended to the benefit of a party can be waived. I
am mentioning all these aspects to sho~ how zealously
this court has been resisting· every attempt to narrow
down the scope of the rights guaranteed under Part If/ C
of our Constitution.
76. Admittedly the provisions contained in the
Limitation Act do not apply to proceedings under Article
226 or Article 32. The Constitution makers wisely, if I
may saywith respect, excluded the application of those D
provisions to proceedings under Articles 226, 227 and
32 lest the efficacy of the constitutional remedies
should be left to the tender mercies of the legislatures.
This Court has laid down in I. C. Golaknath v. State of
Punjab [(1967) 2 SCR 762] that the Parliament cannot E
by amending the Constitution abridge the fundamental
rights conferred under Part Ill of the Constitution. /fwe
are to bring in the provisions of Limitation Act by an
indirect process to control the remedies conferred by
the Constitution it would mean that what the Parliament F
· cannot do directly it can do indirectly by curtailing the
period of limitation for suits against the Government.
We may console ourselves by saying that the
provisions of the Limitation Act will have only
persuasive value but they do not limit the power of this G
Court but the reality is bound to be otherwise. Very soon
the line that demarcates the. rule of prudence and
binding rule is bound to vanish as has happened in the
past. The _fear that forgotten claims and discarded rights
may be sought to be enforced against the Government H
'
774 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] .14 S.C.R.

A after lapse of years, if the fundamental rights ar0 held
to be 'enforceable without any time limit appears to be
an exaggerated one. It is for the party who complains
the infringement of any right to establish his right. As
years roll on his task is bound to become more and
B more difficult. He can enforce only an existing right. A
right may be lost due to an earlier decision of a
competent court or due to various other reasons. If a
.rig/7t is lost for one reason or the other there is no right
to be enforced. In· this case we are dealing with an
c existing right even if it can be said that the petitioners'
remedy under the ordinary law is barred. If the decision
of Bachawat and Mitter, JJ., is correct, startling resul~s ··
are likely to follow. Let its take for example a case of.a
person who is convicted and sentenced to a long period
D of imprisonment on the basis of a statute which had
been repealed long before the alleged offence was
· committed. He comes to know the repeal of the statute
long after the period prescribed for filing appeal expires.
·l.,Jnder such a circumstance according to the decision
E of Bachawat and Mitter, JJ., he will have.no tight- the
discretio.n of the court apart - to move this court for a
writ of habeas corpus.
77. Our Constitution makers in their wisdom thought
that no fetters should be placed on the right of an
F aggrieved party to seek relief from this court under
Article 32. A comparison of the language of Article 226 ·
with that of Article 32 will show that while under Article
226 a discretionary povyer is .conferred on the High
Courts the mandate of the Constitution is absolute so ·
G far as the exercise of this court's power under Article 32
is concerned. Should this court, an institution primarily
created for the purpose ofsafeguarding the fundamental
rights guaranteed under Part Ill of the Constitution,
narrow down those rights? The implications of this
H
ASSAM SANMILITAMAHASANGHA& ORS. v. UNION OF 775
INDIA & ORS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

decision are bound to be far reaching. It is likely to pull A
down from the high pedestal now occupied by the
fundamental rights to the level of other civil rights. I am
apprehensive that this decision may mark an important
turning point in downgrading the fundamental rights
guaranteed under the Constitution. I am firmly of the B
view that a relief asked for under Article 32 cannot be
refused on the ground of /aches. The provisions of the
Limitation Act have no relevance either directly or
indirectly to proceedings under Article 32.
Considerationswhich are relevant in proceedings under C
· ·Article 226 are wholly out of place in a proceeding like
the one before us. The decision of this court referred to
in the judgment of Bachawat and Mitter; JJ., where this
court has taken into consideration. the /aches on the
part of the petitioners are not apposite for our present o
purpose. None of those cases deal with proceedings
under Article 32 of the Constitution. The rule enunciated
by this court in the State of M.P v. Bhai/al Bhai, [(1964)
6 SCR 261) is only applicable to proceedings under
Article 226. At p. 271 of the report, Das Gupta, J., who E
spoke for the court specifically referred to this aspect
.when he says:
''That it has been made clear.more than once that
power to relief under Article 226 is a discretionary power."
F
23. It will thus be seen that Hidayatullah, C.J., did not lay
down any fixed period. According to him, there is no lower
limit or upper limit except that utmost expedition is a sine qua
non for moving a petition under Article 32. The learned Chief
Justice left it to be decided on the facts of each case
. depending on what the breach of the fundamental right is, what G
. the remedy claimed is, and when and how the delay arose.
Sikri J., on the other hand was in favour of an inflexible time
limit that is not beyond one year. Both Bachawat and Mitter,
J., would ask the question as to whether time under the
H
776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A Limitation Act had run out, and if so, whether the writ petition
ought to be dismissed as a result.
24. It is-clear from a reading of these differing judgments
that the ratio of this Constitution bench judgment can broadly
be stated to be that a writ petition filed under Article 32 can be
8 dismissed on the ground of delay. Beyond that, there is no.
discernible ratio as no majority can be cobbled up for deciding
on what basis such writ petition can be so dismissed.
25. Close on the heels of this judgment in. Rabindranath
C Bose & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (1970) 1 SCC 84, a
fervent plea was made to reconsider the judgment in
Tilokchand Motichand. This plea was turned down and it
was held that a stale claim of 15 years to challenge
appointments and promotions already made without any
0 explanation for so moving after 15 years ·would result in
dismissal of an Article 32 petitiqn, more so when rights had
accrued to the respondents in that case. The Court held:
· "31. But insofar as the attack is based on the 1952
Seniority Rules, it must fail on another ground. The
E ground being that this petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution has been brought about fifteen years after
the 1952 Rules were promulgated and effect given to
them in the Seniority List prepared on August 1, 1953.
Learned counsel for the petitioners says that this Court
F has no discretion and cannot dismiss the petition under
Article 32 on the ground that it has been brought after
. inordinate delay. We are unable to accept this
contention. This Court by majority in Tilokchand Moti
Chand v. H.B: Munshi [(1969) 1 SCC 110] held that
G de(ay can be fatal in certain circumstances. We may
mention that in Laxmanappa Hanumantappa
Jamkhandi V: Union of India [AIR 1955 SC 3, (1955) 1
SCR 769] Mahajan, C.J., obsen 1 as follows:
"From the facts stated above it is plain that the
H proceedings taken under the impugned Act 30of1947
ASSAM SANMILITA MAHASANGHA &ORS. v. UNION OF 777
lNDIA &ORS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

concluded so far es the Investigation Commission is A
concerned in September 1952 more than two years
before this petition was presented in this Court. The
assessment orders under the Income Tax Act itself were
.made against the petitioner in November 1953.
In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that he B
is entitled to no relief under the provisions of Article 32
of the Constitution. It was held by this Court in
Ramjilal v. ITO that as there is a special provision in
Article 265 of the Constitution that no tax shall be levied
or collecte9 except by authority of law, clause (1) of C
Article 31 must therefore be regarded as concerned with
deprivation of property otherwise than by the imposition
or collection of tax, and inasmuch as the right conferred
by Article 265 is not a right conferred by Part Ill of the
Constitution, it could not be enforced under Article 32. D
In view of this decision it h<1s to be held that the petition
under Article 32 is not maintainable in the situation that
has arisen and that even otherwise in the. peculiar
circumstances that have arisen, it would not be just and
proper to direct the issue of any of the writs the issue of E
which is discretionary with the Court."
(emphasis supplied).
32. The learned counsel for the petitioners strongly
urges that the decision of this Court in Tilokchand F
Motichand case [(1969) 1SCC110] needs review. But
after carefully considering the matter, we are of thf! view
that no relief should be given to petitioners who, without
any reasonable explanation, approach this Court under
Article 32 of the Constitution after inordinate delay. The G
highest Court in this land has been given original
jurisdiction to entertain petitions under Article 32 of the
Constitution. It could not have been the intention that
this Court would go into stale demands after a lapse of
years. It is said that Article· 32 is itself a guaranteed right. H
778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 14 S.C.R.

A So it is, but it does not follow.from this that it was the
intention of the Constitution-makers that this Court
should discard all principles and grant relief in petitions
filed after inordinate delay.
33. We are not anxious to throw out petitions on this
B ground, but we must administer justice in accordance
with law and principles of equity, justice. and good
conscience. It would be unjust to deprive the
respondents of the rights which have accrued to them.
Each person ought to be entitled to sit back.and
c consider that his appointment and promotion effected
a long time ago wouid not be set aside after the lapse
ofa number ofyears. It was on this ground that this Court
in Jaisinghani case_ observed that the order in that case
would not affect Class II officers who tiave been
D appointed permanently as Assistant .Commissioners.
In that case, the Court was only considering the
challenge-to appointments and promotions made after
1950. In this case, we are asked to consider the validity·
of appointments and promotions made during the
E periods of 1945 to 1950. If there was adequate reason.
in that case to leave out Class II officers, who had been ·
appointed permanently Assistant Com_missioners,
there is much more reason in this case that the officers
. who are now permanent Assistant Commissioners of ·
F . Income Tax and who were appointed and promoted to
their original posts during 1945 to 1950, should be left
alone.'.'.,
· 26. In Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar v. State of
Maharashtra, (1974) 1SCC317, a Constitution Bench was
G · invited to dismiss a petition' filed under Article 32 on the ground
of laches. The petitioner having approached the court after a
delay of at least eight years, the Court held that barring a writ
petition containing stale claims is not a rule of law but a rule of
practice based on sound and proper discretion. There is no
H
ASSAM SANMILITA MAHASANGHA & ORS. v. UNION OF 779
INDIA& ORS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

inviolable rule that whenever there is_ a delay, the court must . A
necessarily refuse to entertain the petition. After referring to
Tilokchand Motichand and Rabindranath Bose, the Court
held that the claim for enforcement of the fundamental right of
equal opportunity under Article 16 cannot be dismissed solely
on the ground of delay/laches etc. The Court also went on to B
hold that promotions being provisional, no rights have been
conferred on those who are promoted whose interest can
therefore be defeated if ultimately it is found that such
.promotions are not warranted in law.
27. In Express Publication (Madurai) Ltd. v. Union C
of Ind fa, (2004) 11 sec 526' the employer newspaper wished
to challenge paragraph 80 of the Employees Provident Fund
Scheme, 1952, which came into force in 1956. The challenge
was made in a writ petition under Article 32, 45 years later in
2001. This was turned down by a Bench of two Judges with a D
caveat, that if it was the case of the petitioners that with the
passage of time, a certain provision had become
unconstitutional, then obviously the very passage of time would
not amount to delay for which a writ petition would not be
entertained. .E
28. Similarly in T.K. Dingal v. State of West Bengal, .
(2009) 1 SCC 768, a Bench of two Judges held that there is ·
no upper and no lower limit when it comes to an Article 32
petition. It all depends on the breach of the particular F
fundamental right, the remedy claimed, and how the delay.
arose. On facts, the petition was turned down as there was an
unexplained delay of ten years.
29. In Bangalore City Co-operative Housing Society
v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 3 SCC 727, a two Judge Bench G
of this Court understood the ratio of Tilokchand Motichand
as follows:
"46. In Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi [(1969)
1 SCC 110]the Constitution Bench considered the
H
780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 14 S.C.R.

A question whether.the writ petition filed under Article 32
of the Constitution for refund of the amount forfeited by
the Sales Tax Officer under Section 21(4) of the Bombay
Sales Tax Act, 1953, which, according to the petitioner,
was ultra vires the powers of the State Legislature should
s. be entertained ignoring the delay of almost nine years.
Sikri and Hedge, JJ. were of the view that even though
the petitioner had approached the Court with
considerable delay, the writ petition filed by it should
be allowed because Section 12-A(4) of the Bombay
c . ·Sales Tax Act, 1946 was declared unconstitutional by
the Division Bench of the High Court (sic Constitution
Bench of the Supreme Court) [Ed.: S. 12-A(4) of the
Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946 (corresponding to S. 21 (4)
of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953) was struck down
·D by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court
in Kantilal Babula/ v. H.C. Patel, AIR 1968 SC 445:
(1968) 1 SCR 735 : 21 STC 174 for being violative of
Art. 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.]. Bachawat and Mitter,
JJ. opined that the writ petition should be dismissed on
E the ground of delay.
47. Hidayatullah, C.J, who agreed with Bachawat and
Mitter, JJ. in Tilokchand case[(1969) 1SCC110] noted
that noperiod of limitation has been prescribed for filing
a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and
F proceeded to observe: (SCC p. 116, para 11)
"11. Therefore, the question is one of discretion for
· this Court to follow from case to case. Theie is no lower
limit and there is no upper limit. A case may be brought
within the Limitation Act by reason of some article but
G ftiis'' Court need not necessarily give the total time. to
the litigant to move this Court under Article 32. Similarly
in a suitable case tnis Court may entertain such a petition
even after a lapse of time. It will all depend on what the

H
ASSAM SANMILITAMAHASANGHA& ORS. v. UNION OF 781
INDIA& .ORS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

breach of the fundamental right and the remedy claimed A
are when and how the delay arose."
48. The ratio of the aforesaid decision is that even
though there is no period of limitation for filing petitions
under Articles 32 and. 226 of the Constitution, the 8
petitioner should approach the Court without loss of
time and if there is delay, then cogent explanation
should be offered for the same. However, no hard-and-
fast rule can be laid down' or a straitjacket formula can
be adopted for deciding whether or not this Couit or the C
High Court should entertain a belated petition filed
under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution and
each case must be decided on its own facts."
30. It will be seen that, in the present case, the petitioners
_ in the various writ petitions represent an entire people - the D
tribal and non-tribal population of the State of Assam. In their
petition, they have raised a plea that the sovereignty and
integrity of India is itself at stake as a massive influx of illegal
migrants from a neighboring country has affected this core
. Constitutional value. That, in fact, it has been held in Sonowal's E
:'.·case that such an influx is "external aggression" within the
meaning of Article 355 of the Constitution of India, and that the
Central Government has done precious little to stem this tide
thereby resulting in a violation of Article 355. As a result of this
huge influx, periodic clashes have been taking place between F.
the citizens of India and these migrants resulting into loss of
life and property, sounding in a violation of Articles 21 and 29
of the Constitution of the Assamese people as a whole. Not
only is there an assault on the life of the citizenry of the State of
Assam but there is an assault on their way of life as well. The G.
culture of an entire people is being eroded in such a way that
they will ultimately be swampe·d by persons who have no rig ht
to continue to live in this country. The petitioners have also
argued that this Hon'ble Court in Sonowal's case has
specifically held in para 79 thereof that Bangladeshi nationals H
782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R~

A who have illegally crossed the border and have trespassed
into Assam or are living in other parts of the country have no
legal right of any kind to remain in India and are liable to be
deported. They have also raised a fervent plea thatArticle 14
also continues to be violated as Section 6A (3) to (5) are not
B time bound but are ongoing, · ·
31. Given the contentions raised specifically with regard
to pleas under Articles 21 and29, of a whole class of people,
•
namely, the tribal and non-tribal citizens of Assam and given
the fact that agitations on this core are ongoing, we do not feel
C · that petitions of this kind can be dismissed at the threshold on
the ground of delay/laches. Indeed, if we were to do so, we
would be guilty of shirking our Constitutional duty to protect
the lives of our own citizens and their culture. In fact, the time
has come to have a relock at the doctrine of laches altogether
D when it comes to violations of Articles 21 and 29. . -
32. Tilokchand Motichand is a judgment involving property
rights of individuals. Ramchandra Deodhar's case, also of a
Constitution Bench offive judges has held thcttthe fundamental
E right under Article 16 cannot be wished away solely on the
'jejune' ground of delay. Since Tilokchand Motichand's case
was decided; there have been important strides made in the
law. Property Rights have been removed from part Ill of the
Constitution altogether by the Constitution 44t11 AmendmentAct.
F The same amendment made it clear that even dudng an
emergency, 'the fundamental right under Article 21 can never
be suspended, and amended Article 359 (1) to give effect to
this. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC
248 decided nine years after Tilokchand Motichand, Article
G 21 has been given its new dimension, and pursuant to the new
dimension a huge number of rights have come under the
umbrella of Article 21 (for an enumeration of these rights, see·
Kapila Hingorani v. State of Bihar, (2003) 6 SCC 1 at para ·
57). Further, in Olga Tellis & Ors. v. Bombay Municipal .
H Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545, it has now been conclusively.·.
ASSAM SANMILITA MAHASANGHA & ORS. v. UNION OF 783
INDIA& ORS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.)

held that all fundamental rights cannot be waived (at para 29). A
Given these important developments in the law, the time has·
come for this Court to say that at least when it comes to
violations of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty,
delay or !aches by itself without more would not be sufficient to
shut the doors of the court on any petitioner. B
33. Coming now to the merits, we have heard several
counsels forthe petitioners who have raised a number of points,
which have been rebutted by the counsel for the Union of India,
the State of Assam and several interveners. We feel that the
following questions need to be answered by an appropriate C
Bench as most of them are substantial questions as to the
interpretation of the Constitution which have to be decided by
a minimum of 5 Judges under Article 145(3). An enumeration
of these questions is as follows:
D
(i) Whether Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution of India
permit the enactment of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act in
as much as Section 6)\, in prescribing a cut-off date different
from the cut-off date prescribed in Article 6, can do so without
a "variation" of Article 6 itself; regard, in particular, being had E
to the phraseology of Article 4 (2) read with Article 368 (1 )?
(ii) Whether Section 6A violates Articles 325 and 326 of
the Constitution of India in that it has dilLJted the political rights
of the citizens of the State of Assam;
. (iii) What is the scope of the fundamental right contained F
in Article 29( 1)? Is the fundamental right absolute in its terms?
In particular, what is the meaning of the expression "culture"
and the expression "conserve"? Whether Section 6A violates
Article 29( 1)?
G
(iv) Whether Section 6A violates Artic;le 355? What is
the true interpretation of Article 355 of the Constitution? Would
an influx of illegal migrants into a State of India constitute
"external aggression" and/or "internal disturbance"? Does the
H
784 . SUPREME COURT RE;PORTS [2014) 14 S.C.R.

A expression "State" occurring in this Article refer only to a
territorial region or does it also include the people living in the
State, which would include their culture and identity?
(v) Whether Section 6A violates Article 14 in that, it
singles out Assam from other border States (which comprise
B a distinct class) and discriminates against it. Also whether
there is no rational basis for having a separate cut-off date for
regularizing illegal migrants who enter Assam as opposed to
the rest of the country; and
c (vi) Whether Section 6A violates Article 21 in that the lives
and personal liberty of the citizens of Assam have been affected
adversely by the massive influx of illegal migrants from
Bangladesh.
(vii) Whether delay is a factor that can be taken into
D account in moulding relief under a petition filed under Article
32 of the Constitution?
(viii) Whether, after a large number of migrants from East
Pakistan have enjoyed rights as Citizens of India for over 40
years, any relief can be given in the petitions filed in the present
E cases?
,_ (ix) Whether section 6A violates the basic premise of
the Constitution and the Citizenship Act in that it permits Citizens
who have allegedly not lost their Citizenship of East Pakistan
F to become deer:ned Citizens of India, thereby conferring dual
Citizenship to such persons?
(x) Whether section 6A violates the fundamental basis of
section 5 ( 1) proviso and section 5 (2) of the Citizenship Act
(as it stood in 1985) in that it permits a class of migrants to
G become deemed Citizens of India without any reciprocity from
Bangladesh and without taking the oath of allegiance to the
Indian Constitution?
(xi) Whether the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act,
1950 being a special enactment qua immigrants into Assam,
H
ASSAM SANMILITAMAHASANGHA& ORS. v. UNION OF 785
INDIA& ORS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

alone can apply to migrants from East Pakistan/Bangladesh A
to the exclusion of the general Foreigners Act and the
Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 made thereunder?
(xii) Whether Section 6A violates the Rule of Law in that
it gives way to political expediency and not to Government
according to law? B
(xiii) Whether Section 6A violates fundamental rights in
that no mechanism is provided to determine which persons
are ordinarily resident in Assam since the dates of their entry
into Assam, thus granting deemed citizenship to such persons c
arbitrarily?
34. These matters be placed before the Chief Justice
·for constitution of an appropriate bench to answer the above
questions. As notice is yet to be issued in Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 876 of 2014, we direct that notice be issued and served D
on the Respondents in the said writ petition.
35. As Section 6A of the Citizenship Act must be deemed
to be valid until the larger Bench decides these matters, we
will proceed, for the purposes of this order, on the footing that
Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is valid. · E
. 36. As the statement of objects and reasons for the
enactment of Section 6A states, the said Section was inserted
into the statute book in 1985 to implement one part of the
Assam Accord dated 15'h August, 1985. The Assam Accord F
contained various provisions providing for reciprocal
obligations. These are largely contained in paragraphs 5, 6,
9 and 10 which read as under:
"5.
1. For purpose of detection and deletion of foreigners, G
1-1-1966 shafl be the base date and year.
2. All persons who came to Assam prior to 1-1-1966,
including those amongst them whose names appeared
H
786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 14 S.C.R.

on the el~ctoral rolls used in 1967 elections, shall be
regulariZed
3. Foreigners who came to Assam after 1-1-1966.
(inclusive) and upto 24th March, 1971 shall be detected
in accordance with the provisions of the Foreigners Act,
B 1946 and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1939.
4. Names of foreigners so detected will be deleted from
the electoral rolls in force. Such persons will be required
to register themselves before the Registration Officers
c of the respective districts in accordance with the
provisions of the Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939
and th.e Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1939.
5. For this purpose, Government of India will undertake.
\
suitable strengthening of the governmental machinery.
0. ' 6. On the expiry of the_ period of ten year following the
date of detection, the· names of all such persons which
have been deleted from the electoral rolls $hall be
restored.

E 7. All persons who were expelled earlier. but have since
re-entered illegally into Assam. shall be expelled.
8. Foreigners who came to Assam on or after March ·
25, 1971 shall cof.ltil?ue to be detected. deleted and
expelled in accordarice with the law. Immediate ana
F practical steps shall be taken to expel such foreigners.
9. The Government will give due consideration to
certain difficulties express by .the AASUIAAGSP
regarding the implementation of the illegal Migrants
(Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983.
G ...
6. Constitutional. fegislative and administrative
safeguards. as mav be appropriate, shall be provided
to protect. preserve and promote the cultural, social,
linguistic identity and heritage of the Assamese people.
H
ASSAM SANMILITAMAHASANGHA& ORS. v. UNION OF 787
INDIA& ORS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

9. A
1. The international border shall .be made secure
against future infiltration by erection of physical barriers
like walls barbed wire fencing and other obstacles at
appropriate places. Patrolling by security forces on land
and riverine routes all along the international border 8
shall be adequately intensified. In order to further
strengthen the security arrangements. to prevent
ybeffectively future infiltration. an adequate number of
check posts shall be set up.
c
2. Besides the arrangements mentioned above and
. keeping in view security considerations, a road all along
the international border shall be constructed so as to
facilitate patrolling by security forces. Land between
border and the road would be kept free of human 0
habitation, wherever possible. Riverine patrolling along
the international border would be intensified. All effective ·
measures would be adopted to prevent infiltrators
crossing or attempting to cross the international border.
10. It will be ensured that relevant laws for prevention E
of encroachment of government lands and lands in
tribal belts and blocks are strictly enforced and
unauthorized encroachers evicted as laid down under
such laws."
37. Sarbananda Sonowalv. Union of India & Anr., F ·
(2005) 5 SCC 665, dealt with the Assam Accord in some
detail in as much as The Illegal Migrants (Determination by
Tribunals) Act, 1983 was under challenge in that case. This
Court examined a writ petition filed under Article 32 and various
affidavits filed by the Union of India and the State of Assam G·
regarding implementation of the Assam Accord. The following
paragraphs from the judgment will Show that whereas a part of
paragraph 5 of the Accord ha:? been fully implemented by
enacting Section 6A, precious little has been done by the Union
H
788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS r2014J 14 s,c.R.

A of India and the state of Assam to implement the other parts of
the Accord. ·
"2 ...................... As a result of the students'
movement and ensuing negotiations, a memorandum
of settlement dated 15-8-1985 was entered into 'between
B All Assam Students' Union and the Union of India and
the State of Assam, which is commonly known as
"Assam Accord". The terms of the Accord specifically
provided that steps would be taken to detect and deport
i/legal migrants from Assam and it also ·contained a
c clause that "the Government will give due consideration
to certain difficulties expressed by AASU/AAGSP
regarding the implementation of the Illegal Migrants
(Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983". The Accord
further provided that foreigners who have entered into
D India after 25-3-1971 will continue to be detected, their
names deleted from the electoral rolls and they will be
deported from India In pursuance of this provision, the
. Citizenship Act, 1955 was amended by Act 6~ of 1985.
and Section 6-A was inserted with the heading "Special
E provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the
Assam Accord". It provides that the term "detected to
be a foreigner" shall mean so detected under the
Foreigners Act and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order,
. 1964 framed thereunder. Under the said provision a
F t. person of Indian. origin as defined under Section 6-A
(3)who entered into Assam prior to 1-1-1966 and has
been resident in Assam since then is deemed to be a
citizen of India. However, if such a person entered into
Assam between 1-1-1966 and before 25-3-1971 and
G has been detected to be a foreigner under the
Foreigners Act then he is not entitled to be included in
the electora/.list for a period of 10 years from the date
of detection. This ame_ndment of the Citizenship Act
makes it clear that the question of determination or
H detection of a foreigner: is to be· governed by the
ASSAM SANMILITAMAHASANGHA& ORS. v. UNION OF 789
INDIA& ORS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.)

provisions of the existing Central legislation viz. the A
Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners (Tn"bunals)
Order, 1964.
4. The Union of India filed a counter-affidavit on 18-
7-2000, which has. been sworn by Shri Jatinder Bir
Singh, Director, Ministry of Home Affairs. In para 7 of B
this affidavit, it was stated that a proposal to repeal the
/MDT Act is under consideration of the Government of
India. A copy of the reply given by Shri 1.0. Swami,
Minister of State in the Ministry of Home Affairs in the
Rajya Sabha on 8-3-2000 has been filed as Annexure C
R-2 to the counter-affidavit, wherein the Minister had
said that in the State of Assam Foreigners Tribunals
under the Foreigners Act, 1946 are functioning for
detection of illegal migrants, who had come to the State
of Assam after 1-1-1966 and up to 24-3-1971 and the D
I/legal Migrants Determination Tribunals under the
/MDT Act have .been constituted for detection and
· deportation of illegal migrants, who had entered into
India on or after 25-3-1971. The Hon'ble Minister had
further stated that the Government is of the view that E
application of the /MDT Act to the State of Assam alone
is discriminatory and a proposal to repeal the said Act
is under consideration of the Government. A true copy
of the latest status report filed by the Government in
Writ Petition No. 125 of 1998, which has been filed F
seeking deportation of all Bangladeshi nationals from
India, has been filed as Annexure R-1 to the counter-
affidavit and paras 3 to 7 of the said status report are
being reproduced below:
"3. Continuing influx of Bangladeshi nationals into G
India has peen on account of a variety of reasons
· including religious and economic. Thero is a
combination of factors on both sides which are
responsible for continuing influx of illegal immigration
H
790 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

.A from Bangladesh. The important 'Push Factors' on the
Bangladesh side include: .
(a) steep and continuous increase in population; ,
(b) sharp deterioration in land-man ratio;
B (c) low rates of economic growth particularly poor
performance in agriculture;
· The 'Pull Factors' on the Indian side include:
(a) ethnic proximity and kinship enabling easy shelter
C to the immigrants; ·
(b) pQrous and easily negotiable border with
Bangladesh;
(c) better economic opportunities;
D (d) interested religious and political elements
encouraging· immigration;
4. It is difficult to make a realistic estimate of the
number of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh because ·
they enter surreptitiously and are able to mingle easily
E with the local population due to ethnic· and linguistic
similarities. The demographic composition in the
districts bordering Bangladesh has altered with the
illegal immigration from Bangladesh. The districts of .
Assam and West Bengal bordering Bangladesh have
F recorded growth of population higher than the national
average. The States of Meghalaya, Mizoram and
Tripura have also recorded high rates of population ·
· growth. 11/egalimmigrantS from Bangladesh have also
been using West Bengal as a corridor to migrate to ·
G other parts of the country.
5. The largecscale influx of illegal Bangladesh
immigrants has led to large tracts of sensilive ·
international borders being occupied by foreigners. This
· has serious implications for internal security.
H
ASSAM SANMILITAMAHASANGHA&ORS. v. UNION OF 791
INDIA& ORS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

6. The types of illegal migrants are as follows: A
(a) those who came with valid visa/documents and
overstayed;
(b) those who came with forged visa/documents; and
(c) those who entered surreptitiously. B
7. During talks between the Prime Ministers of India
and Bangladesh in February 1972, the Prime Minister
of Bangladesh had assured the.return of all Bangladesh
nationals who had taken shelter in India since 25-3-
. 1971. Accordingly a circular was issued by the C
Government of India on 30-9-1972 setting out
guidelines for action to be taken in respect of persons
who had come to India from Bangladesh. According to
this circular; those Bangladesh nationals who had come
to India before 25-3-1971 were not to be sent back and D
those who entered India in or after the said date were to
b,e repatriated."
5. Jn para 12 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that
"the basic objection of the petitioner is under E
consideration of the Central Government that.fhe /MDT
Act and the Rules made thereunder are not effective in
comparison to the Foreigners Act, 1946, which is
applicable to the whole country except to the State of
Assam". In para 18 of the counter-affidavit it is stated F
that the administrative powers in respect of the /MDT
Act have been delegated to the Government of Assam
under Section 21 of the aforesaid Act. The second sub- ·
paragraph of para. 18 and para 19 of the counter-
affidavit are important and are being reproduced below: · G
"It is further submitted that the detection/expulsion of
illegal migrants under the /MDT Act, has been extremely
dismal. According to the information furnished by the
Government of Assam, the progress in respect of detection/
H
792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 14 S.C.R.

A expulsion of illegal migrants (those who entered Assam on
or after 25-3-1971 up to 30-4~2000) is as fo!lows: .
1. Total number of enquiries initiated 3, 1O,759
2. Total number of enquiries completed· 3,07,955
B 3. Total number of enquiries referred to the
Screening Committee 3,01,986
4. Total number of enquiries made by the
Screening Committee 2,98,465
c
5. Total number of enquiries referred to IM(DT)s 38, 631
6. Total number of enquiries disposed of
by IM(DT)s 16,599
o 7. Total number of persons declared as
illegal migrants 10,015
8. Total number of illegal migrants physica!ly
expe!led
E 9. Total number of illegal migrants tO whom
expulsion order served 5733
.10. Total number of enquiries pending with
the Screening Committee 3521
F
11. Total number of enquiries pending with
the Tribunal · 22,072
In reply to para 9, it is submitted that the Chief Minister
G of Assam had requested the then Prime Minister vide his
letter dated 22-6-1996 regarding repeal of the IMO T Act. The
Chief Minister again reiterated for scrapping the !MDT Act,
vide his letter dated 31-7-1996 addressed to the Home·
.Minister. This vfow has been reconfirmed by the State
H Government vide its message dated 23-4-1998."
ASSAM SANMILITAMAHASANGHA& ORS. v. UNION OF 793
INDIA& ORS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

11. The Union of India filed a counter-affidavit swam by A
Shri Jatinder Bir Singh, Director, Ministry of Home Affairs, in
reply to the additional affidavit of the State of Assam. It is
averred therein that the matter of constitutional validity of the
/MDT Act does not depend on political issues, but depends
on facts and legal grounds. The relevant part of the opening B
part of the affidavit which has some relevance is being
reproduced below: ·
"In this context, it is submitted that detection of illegal
migrants, who belong to the same ethnic stock as Indians is
not an easy task. However, large-scale illegal migrants from C
Bangladesh have not only threatened the demographic
structure of the area but have seriously impaired the security
of the nation. particularly in the present circumstances. The
need for expeditious identification of illegal migrants7s more
pressing now than ever. It is not a matter of dealing with a D
religious or linguistic group. It is a question of identifying
those who illegally crossed over the border and continue to
live in India contrary to the Indian law and the Constitution.
The facts and figures which have been stated by the
Union of India in its affidavit filed in the case titled 'Jamiat E
Ulama-E-Hind v. Union of India [WP (C) No. 7 of 2001]'
clearly indicate that it is the existence of the /MDT Act, which
has been the single factor responsible for dismal detection
and expulsion of illegal migrants in Assam. It has also been F
pointed out that in the neighbouring States, where this law is
not in force, the process of detection (although far from
satisfactory) has been far more effective than in the State of
Assam. The application of the /MDT Act, 1983 in Assam
virtually gives the illegal migrants, in the State, preferential
protection in a matter relating to the citizenship of India. This G
is clearly unconstitutional and violative of the principles of
equality. The affidavit of the State seems to suggest that the
matter has now become a political rather than a legal issue.
However, it, is submitted that as far as the present pleadings H
794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A are concerned, the issues indicated in the present affidavit
of the State under reply, are not relevant. None of the
submissions made in the connected affidavit, referred to' '
above filed by the Union of India in connected .Writ Petition
No. 7 of 2001, are controverted by the State ofAssam in'
B present affidavit. Besides this, the State has not given any ·
fresh facts and figures, which would seek to suggest that this
Act has secured the object of dealing with illegal infiltrators."
13. The petitioner has also filed a reply to the additional
affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Assam, where besides
C reiterating his earlier pleas, it is averred that the Indian
National Congress representatives from North-East have
themselves alluded to the problem of illegal migration in the
past. Reference is made to a report of thtfGeneral Secretaries
to the Seventh General Conference of the North~Eastein
D Congress (I) Coordination Committee dated 3-7-1992
wherein it was recorded as under:
"20. 1 There are.infiltrations - though it is a difficult
task to examine the precise number.
E 20. 2 The infiltrations are not only by minorities of
Bangladesh but also from the majority Muslims. In
absolute terms, the number of Muslims crossing into
India is likely to be much larger than that of non-Muslims.
20. 3 An ideological support is given to the
F phenomenon by the Islamic Fundamentalists creating
the vision of a larger country comprising Bangladesh
and the entire North-East where its economic prqblems
will be solved and security ensured.

G 20.4 There is a direct correlation between the rise of ·
fundamentalism and increase in influx."
16. In IA No. 6 of 2004, the copy of the memorandum
submitted before the Parliamentary Standing Committee of
Home Affairs on "the Illegal Migrants Laws (Replacing and
H Amending) Bill, 2003" on behalf of the Government ofAssam
ASSAM SANMILITAMAHASANGHA& ORS. v. UNION OF 795
INDIA & ORS. [R. F. NARI MAN, J.]

has been filed, which contains the figures regarding inquiries A
conducted up to 3.1-8-2003 and the same is as under:
1. Total number of enquiries initiated 3,.86,249
2. Total number of enquiries completed 3, 79,521
3. Total number of enquiries referred to the B
Screening Committee 3,62,592
4. Total number of enquiries made by the
Screening Committee 3,59, 733
.c
5. Total number of enquiries referred to IM(DT)s 76,228
6. Total number of enquiries disposed of by
IM(DT)s 21, 169
7. Total number of persons declared as illegal D
migrants 11.636
8. Total number of illegal migrants phvsically
expelled
9. Total number of.illegal migrants to whom E
expulsion order served 6159
10. Total number of enquiries pending with the
Screening Committee 2859
F
11. Total number of enquiries pending with
the Tribunal 55,059"
38. The State of Assam has prepared a White Paper on
·the Foreigners Issue dated 201h October, 2012. We propose G
to extract.large portions of this paper only to show that even as
on October 20, 2012, very little has been done to implement
paragraphs 5(part), 6, 9 and 10 of the Assam Accord.
2.3.5. The 21 IMDTs functioning in Assam were wound
up and replaced by 21 new Foreigners Tribunals. The H
796 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A learned judges and staff of /MDT were redeployed in
the newly created additional Foreigners Tribunals. As
a result, after 2005, 32(21 new + 11 existing)
Foreigners Tribunals started functioning. The number
of Foreigners Tribunal has now been raised to 36 with
B the functioning of 4 new Foreigners Tribunals. The
petformance of Foreigners Tribunal over different time
period is presented in the table below:
Foreigners Tribunals Cases

C. lt!riai ams p!11irg !Um•·
U:resd'µ71!d Qm,· No <f d?clatri
iefCimi famktne) dr/aedm foeigl!r.; pUai
Fari!!lus Brlid!rnled
Jl,85. L?WI /59]'} 1702 /4ff)J 133
IO
/WI- 482 w /1635 ;ffD ;r)!
95
D /9)5. R:l5 3552 JIW (JJ]6 235
Ml/
:JI}/- «Bl ·1216 /$)fl 4593 39
:m;
Am 65rm 45456 35157 12913 221
.lily
E ::ri/2
Tctd /{ff]/9 7m 35157 42338 EfJ5

Consolidated total of deported/pushed back illegal
migrants on being declared as foreigners by IMD(T)s and
Foreigners Tribunals collectively till July 2012-
F 1547+895=2442.
2. 5. 4. In the absence of a proper laid down procedure
for deportation of illegal migrants between the Government
of India and the Government of Bangladesh. it has become
difficult to carry out deportations. As such, deportation of
G .foreigners is mainlv carried out through the 'push back'
method. However, to overcome .this problem, the Ministry of
Home Affairs has recently prescribed a detailed proforma
which has been circulated to all State Governments for
collecting data of such foreigners who are presently being
H
ASSAM SANMILITA MAHASANGHA &ORS. v. UNION OF 797
INDIA &ORS. [R. F. NARI MAN, J.]

detained in detention centres. The matter of deportation of A
foreigners who have illegally entered into India needs to be
taken up by the Government of India with the Government of
Bangladesh so that a proper policy could be evolved and
the process of deportation of such declared foreigners
become easier and hassle free. B
3.1. CLAUSE 6
3. 1.1. As per the Clause 6 of the Assam Accord,
constitutional, legislative and administrative safeguards as
may be appropriate shall be provided to protect, preserve c
and promote the cultural, social, linguistic identity and
heritage of the Assamese people. For this purpose the
Government of Assam had earlier constituted a Committee
of Ministers for Clause 6 under notification No. /AA 51120051
29 dated 19'h October 2006 to examine all the issues relating 0
to the implementation of the Clause 6 of the Assam Accord
including the definition of 'Assamese people'. This
Committee had held a number of meetings and also met
Politica.l Parties. It sought the views of different Political
Parties, Sahitya Sabhas, Youth Organisations, Student E
Bodies etc on the definition of 'Assamese People' and
deliberated on the same. After the present Government
assumed office in May 2011, a Cabinet Sub-Committee was
constituted in July 2011 to inter a/ia deal with the matter of
implementation of Clause 6 of the Assam Accprd. The entire F
matter is now under examination of the Cabinet Sub-
committee.
3. 1. 2. A cultural centre called the Srimanta Sankardeva
Kalashetra Complex has been established in 1992 at a cost
of Rs 18.85 crores in Guwahati. Out of this, an amount of Rs G
3. 15 crores were spent during 1991-1995 and the remaining
Rs 15. 75 crores spent during 1996-2000. The Jyoti Chitraban
Film Studio (Phase I &II) at Guwahati has been modernised
at a cost of Rs 8. 79crores, of which Rs4.79crores were spent
during 1998-2000 and Rs 4. 20 crores were spent during 2001- H
798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 14 S.C.R.

A 2003. The Phase Ill (Part I) of the modernisation of the Jyoti
Chitraban Film Studio for Rs 10 crores has also been
sanctioned by the Govt. of India in 2007. Against the release
of Rs 10. 00 crores by the Govt. of India, the State Govt. has
already sanctioned Rs 6. 66 crores to the Jyoti Chitraban Film
B Studio Society (JCFSS), which is implementing the scheme.
A Technical <;:ommittee and a Monitoring & Supervision
Committee have been constituted to implement the project.
An amount of around Rs 2. 64 crores have been spent so far
and.works are under progress.
c 3. 1.3. In addition to the two Monuments at Paa-Mecca,
Hajo and Urvarsi Archaeological Site that were taken over
by the Archaeological Survey of India in 1919 and 1918
respectively, the Archaeological Survey of India has taken
up another three Monuments for their preservation in 2005.
D These Monuments are the Hayagriva Madhava Temple,
Hajo, the Kedar Temple, Hajo and the Ganesh. Temple, Hajo.
3. 1.4. The Government of Assam has also taken up
the development of Historical Monuments and
E Archaeological Sites in Assam. During 2009-10, three
Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites have been
, taken up for Rs 2. 00 crores and another 8 taken up for Rs
5.00 crores during 2010-11. An amount of Rs 5.00 crores
has been provided during 2012-13 for taking up the
F development of more Historical Monuments and
Archaeological Sites in Assam. · ·
3.1.5. The Government of Assam has also taken up
the protection, preservation and development of Sattras in
Assam. During 2009-10, three Sattr:as were taken up for Rs
G 3.00 crores and during 2011-12, Rs 10.00 crores was
provided for the protection, preservation and development
of 87 Sattras in Assam: An amount of Rs 15. 00 crores has
been provided during 2012-13 for the protection, preservation
and development of 85 Sattras in Assam.
H
ASSAM SANMILITAMAHASANGHA& ORS. v. UNION OF 799
INDIA & ORS. [R. F. NARI MAN, J.]

3. 1. 6. The Executive Council of the Jawaharlal Nehru A
University has approved the establishment of an Assamese·
Chair in the Centre of Indian Language,· Literature and
Culture Studies of the University in 2007.
3.4. CLAUSES 9.1 & 9.2
B
3.4.1. BORDER FENCING & BORDER ROADS
3.4.1.1. The Inda-Bangladesh border with Assam has
a length of 267.30 km. ·Out of this 223.068 km is the land
border and 44.232 km are river stretches and other non-
feasible gaps across the river border. Within 44. 232 km, the C
Brahmaputra river has a stretch of 32. 750 km in Dhubri
District. Details of the river border areas is given in the
Annexure-12. Roads and Fences are erected only on land
border and the length of 44. 232 km is unfericed.
3.4: 1.2. Roads and Fences have been taken up for D
construction on the land border in three phases. In the Phase-
/, construction of new roads and fencing was taken up in 1986
by Assam PWD.and works completed in 2003. In the Phase- ·
II, construction of remaining new roads and fencing was taken
up by Assam PWD in 2000-01. Subsequently some parts of E
this Phase-I/ works were handed over to the National Building
. Construction Corporation (NBCC) by the Assam PWD. While
Assam PWD has almost.completed its works, that of NBCC
are in progress. Under the Phase-II/ reconstruction of the
fences constructed. in Phase-I was taken up from 2006-07 F
through NBCC and NPCC (National Projects Construction
Corporation). While NBCC has completed its Phase-II/
· assigned works, works of NPCC are in progress.
3.4.1.3 A total of 228.118 km of new fencing was G
sanctioned under Phase•/&//, out of which, based on field
conditions, the actual required length was 224. 694 km.
Against this 218. 170 km of fencing (97.1 %) has been
completed. A stretch of 2. 874 km could not be taken up: at
Lathitila-Dumabari area Karimganj district due to an H
800 ··SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 14 S.C.R.

':-
international dispute. Works in respect of 150 meters of
fencing are in progress with Assam PWD. These inter alia
relate to approaches of two bridges and are targeted for
completion within 31, December 2012. A length of 3.50 km
in Karimganj Town could not be taken up earlier as it was
B within 150 metres of the Bangladesh border It has now been
decide'd to take up single fencing in this stretch in Karimganj
Town, for which actions have been initiated by the NBCC.
3.4:1.4. A total of251.558 km of new roads were
sanctioned under Phase-I&//, out of which, based on field
C conditions, the actual required length was 246.073 km.
Against this 234. 153 km of roads (95. 16%) have been.
completed. Assam PWD is yet to complete 60 metres of
roads; which is targeted to be completed by 31st December
2012. NBCCis yet to complete 11.86 km of roads out of which
D 3. 50 km relates to Karimganj Town, where work is yet to be
started, and 8,36 km relates to Masalabari area in Dhubri
district where work is Jn progress and scheduled to be
completed this year
3.4.1.5. A total of 144.961 km of reconstruction
E
Phase-/ fencing was sanctioned under Phase-JI/, out of which
based on field conditions the actual required length was
134.727 km. Against this 121. 707 km (90. 34%) has been
completed. NBCC has completed all works assigned to it.
F Works are in progress in respect of 13. 020 km of fencing
being constructed by NPCC, which are targeted to be
completed by 31 5 ' March 2013. The Government oflndia has
sanctioned the Phase-I/I of the fencing project, entailing the
use of concertina with double coil wire fencing for replacing ·
the entire fencing constructed under Phase- I. Due to
G persistent efforts from Chief Minister, Assam, phase 11 fencing
was designed to be double row where concertina with double
coil wire has been used in contrast to Phase I fencing which
was only single row. A copy of the DO letter written by Chief
Minister, Assam to Union Home Minister in 2004 is placed
H as annexure 13.
ASSAM SANMILITA MAHASANGHA &ORS. v. UNION OF 801
INDIA &ORS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

3.4.1.6. The period-wise achievement in respect of A
Phase I & 11 works done by Assam PWD since 1986 is given
in annexure-14 and w.orks done by all agencies is at
annexure- 15. A summary of the works done by all the
agencies is given in the table below:
Progress under Phase-I and Phase-II (Fencing} B
(in Kms.)
··-- ·------ · · - · · - - - · -----
Plme &vr:t1ornf! Ac;llr:ll Act1r:il 1t:rp1ira:I O:)/rp!e111d Dspuled Hafcu"/Ce
l.£11'i!lh
Ph:rie-1 150.55 1./7.17 1././.3 2.87 0
7757 77.52 73.87 3.65
Plnse-
II
0
c
PfmtL/ 22812 22./.69 21817 2.87 3.65
&II
Pln>e- 14496 13./.73 121.71 0 13.02
Ill
F1'rine

3. 4. 1. 7 While Assam has almost completed its fencing D
project under phase I and II with around 97% of the work
having been completed, the work in other states bordering
Bangladesh is lagging behind as indicated below:
T<id lergh cf /m:i!r forirg Tad la-gh rf lud!r faring
-~ rf
9ae
!Udiam 1nfr Pim?-! a-d cmrieted 11U!r Plue-I <1-d <mrJeticn E
flrise·fl Plrue-ll
H"'1 1528/m 1222/m fJY,{,
/h1"rli
.
;V/!f!h:Jlai r1 ./7023kn J[fJ ()5 fm 81%
lNa1u 856/nt 73Q5Dhn 85%
iWmrrn 35232/m 2ilil1!h11 59'/o
Mwl 22.fff)kn 218/lkn · 97% F
3.4.1.8. The total unfenced portion of the Assam-
Bangladesh border at present is given in the table below :
I. Rwrstrr?tc/15 arl a /11· ron-fi!asilie ~-...· aros; tk mer /xJri?r 4423
U1{emf /?jver 8J'fff-' 4423
2 Flri,,,_llfe1riRWI to/:x! mnieted /7,'.4Pf1D& N8T 165 G
1 D.~ued lai-d u1 la hla-Dmixri 2f!l
4. lilrfierro1Jietedfore in Pfuie./, 1uv111t:krra;ar;tnctia10' MIT.arl_wl to 1302
/:J!c,m/fied
5. Ufer:al Lari Bartr: 1955
Tad 1116re:ll01'$hdaJ?.k~"""""cri?shBarl!r: 6379

H
802 SUPREME COURT REPORTS · [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A 3.4.2. BORDER PATROLLING AND GUARDING
3.4.2.1. In order to strengthen border domination and
to prevent any transborder crimes including infiltration and
exfiltration, after 2001 in the 'Assam portion of the lndo-
Bangladesh border 11 new BOPs have been established.
8 . Meire BSF troops have been deployed and water wing
personnel have been made active on duty round the clock
in the riverine border areas. At present the BSF and the state
police are doing joint patrolling of the borde'rs. A total of 6
battalions of BSF are deployed for guarding of the lndo-
C Bangladesh border(Assam portion). Thf}re are 91 BOPs at·
present and the distance between two BOPs has been
reducea) Night vision devices, thermal indicators and raaar
for better surveillance are being used by the BSF at the border.
The state police are also having BOPs for providing a second
D · line of defence: To strengthen the Government machinery
for the purpose of detection and deportation of foreigners,
the Government oilndia has sanctioned 1,280 additional
posts in different ranks under the PIFScheme. Including these
1,280 posts, the total sanctioned strength of the Assam Police
E Border Organisation is 4,002 police personnel in different
ranks.
3:4.3. COMMITTEE FOR PREVENTING
INFILTRATION THROUGH THE UNPROTECTED
F RIVERINE AREAS ·
3.4.3.1 The actions taken for completing the fencing of·
the land border have been detailed above. Initiative has also
been taken to ensure that infiltration is prevented from the
river stretches and other non-feasible
'
~
gaps
.
across the river
G border. With this end in view the Governor of Assam
constituted a Committee vide the notification No. 1AA 561
201111 dated 12'h September 2011 to examine and
recommend ways and means for preventing infiltration
through the unprotected riverine areas in the Assam-
H Bangladesh border. The Committee visited the riverine
ASSAM SANMILITAMAHASANGHA& ORS. v. UNION OF 803
INDIA & ORS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

border areas of Dhubri district in October 2011 and the A
riverine border areas of Karimganj and Cachar districts in
November 2011. During these visits extensive discussions
were held with BSF and other local authorities. Various
technical options of preventing infiltration through such
riverine areas are presently being considered. · B
3.4.4. FLOOD LIGHTING
3.4.4. 1. To enable proper vigilance of the international
border during the night, action has been taken to provide
floodlighting all along the AssamcBangladesh border. c
Floodlighting works are being implemented by the CPWD in
the Assam. These ypworks are divided between the Guwahati
sector and the Si/char sector and the total length comes to
213. 74 kms. The Guwahati sector comprises a stretch of
37. 60 km in Dhubri sub-sector and 43. 44 km in Mancachar 0
sub-sector. Work has started in both these sub-sectors and
is scheduled to be completed within.2012-13. The Si/char
sector comprises three sub-sectors. The works in-respect of
the first, from BP No. 1338 to 1356 & 680635 for40.50 km
have startedand are scheduled to be completed within 2012- E
13. Works in respect of the remaining two sub-sectors having
stretches of 46. 70 km and 45. 50 km are yet to be started and
are scheduled to be completed within 2013-14. ·
3.5. CLAUSE 10
3. 5. 1. Land administration in the Protected Belts and F
Blocks in Assam is carried out as per provisions of Chapter
X of the Assam land and Revenue Regulation 1886 and
Rules framed there under. Steps are taken for removal of
encroachment on a continuous basis.
G
4.2 PROGRESS IN DETECTION AND DISPOSAL
OF CASES
4.2.1. There has been a substantial increase in the
number of cases detected during the last 11 years. The
disposal of cases also has shown a significant increase H
804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A during this time period. The following table provides a
comparative picture of the cases registered and disposed of
by Foreigners Tribunal & /MDT:
FOREIGNERS' TRIBUNAL AND /MDT

4.2.2. It may be seen.that the progress in 10 years time
·period from 2001-2012 far exceeds the progress made during
the 15 years time period from 1985 to 2000. Keeping in view
C that the disposal mechanism is a judicial process and also .
subject to judicial review, the disposal of cases has not been
able to keep pace with the number of cases registered in the
Foreigners Tribunals. Therefore. there has been a large
cumulative pendencv of cases in the Tribunals which needs
0
to be addressed. through special measures.
4.3. STRENGTHENING OF MACHINERY FOR
DETECTION AND DEPORTATION
r
4. 3. 1. In order to prevent infiltration into the State through
E Riverine Routes 4(four) River Police Stations and ?(seven)
River Police Out Posts have been set up under River Police
Organization. In addition, a new I. R. Battalion for River Police
has also been raised and steps are being taken to provide
necessary equipments and training to this riverine battalion.
F The Assam Police Border Organization has set up 159 Watch
Posts in the infiltration prone areas of 17 districts of Assam
for detection of illegal infiltrators. ·
4.3.2. The ex-servicemen employed under PIF scheme
have been given the status of regular government servants
G so that they do not suffer from uncertainties of employment.
Government has paid more than Rs 22 crores as a"ears to
these ex-servicemen deployed since 1988 during 2011-2012.

H
ASSAM SANMILITAMAHASANGHA& ORS. v. UNION OF 805
INDIA & ORS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

4.3.3. The nuwber of Foreigner's Tribunals which was A
hovering between 4 and 11from1964 to 2005 increased to
36 Tribunals in 2009. All of them have been made functional.
Standard staffing pattern and service order g_overning service
conditions of FT staff have been notified. Proposal for
providing additional staff depending on workload is submitted B
to MHA for approval. Power ·Jf appointment of vacant staff
position has been delegated to Member FT based on a
transparent selection process by a board headed by Deputy
Commissioner.
4.3.4. New terms and conditions have been issued for C
appointment of Members so as to make the service
conditions attractive. The upper age limit has been relaxed
from 65 ypto 67 years, remuneration has been made more
attractive besides providing other amenities like vehicle,
orderly peons etc. This has led to significant reduction in D
vacancy position of Judicial members of Foreigners
Tribunals - 33 members are in place and other 4 applications
are in process to achieve 100 % occupancy. It is noted that
till February 2011 there were as many as 13 vacancies of
Members, Foreigners Tribunal. The Government of Assam E
has also received 7 nominations from the registrars of the
High Courts of other states and 3 members have been
appointed so far from outside the state. There is a paucity of
suitable judicial officers in the State and all efforts have been
made to fill up all the posts of members. This is the biggest F
impediment to our efforts in increasing the number of
tribunals.
4.3. 5. Office infrastructure of Foreigners Tribunals has
been improved by providing computers, printers: telephone, G
fax, photocopiers etc. The Government of Assam is making
every effort to overcome the constraints of inadequate
infrastructure including office space for all the Foreigners
Tribunals.

H
806 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A ~ ANNEXURE - 5
(Copy)
Copy of L~tter NO.PLB.171164134 dated Shillong, 25'h
June, 1966 from Shri S. P Hazarika, A. C. S., Deputy Secretary
B to the Government of Assam, Political Department, to the
Inspector General of Police, Assam, Shillong.
Subject: Procedure for deportation of Pak infiltrants
I am directed to say that a review of the latest position
C of deportation of Pak infiltrants shows that the_ total number
. of Pakistani infiltrants in our State as determined by the
Registrar General of Census In 1961 was 2, 20, 691. It appears
that 'since 1961 till 31-5-66, 2, 15, 794 infiltrants have been
detected and notices for deportation were served or
prosecution was started against 2, 15,355. Out of these.
0 according to the figures confirmed by the Check "Posts.
1.43.438 have already left the country. About 28,999 of the
remaining number on whom notices have been served have
preferred appeal. It may also be assumed that about 25, 000
persons on whom deportation notices were served have left
E by routes other than by the check posts. The number of
infiltrants who have been detected but have not left the country
would come to about 40, 000 plus the number resulting from
natural increase, new infiltration and re-·entry of deported the
· total number of Pakistani infiltrants on the basis of 1961
F census who are yet to be detected comes to about 5,000 or
so. To this we have to add the number resulting from the
natural increase during this period, fresh infiltration and re-
entry of some deported persons. But the total number of such
people should not be many. Therefore, the number of cases
G to be detected is gradually decreasing. Now, more and more
marginal cases would be detected. Therefore, time has come
when we have to be more careful in deportation.
In the light of the above background, Govt. think that
H from now onward, each and every case of deportation should
ASSAM SANMILITAMAHASANGHA& ORS. v. UNION OF 807
INDIA& ORS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

receive the cases where there is slightest doubt, no A
deportation notice should be reserved, but prosecution should
be started in Court of law and deportation notices should be
served on the basis of the judgment in the court of law. The
following categories of cases, however, would be warrant
service of deportation notices without reference to Court:- ·B
(1) A person with Pak passport overstaying illegally in
India;
(2) A person already deported but has re-entered India
illegally; and c
(3) A new infiltrant entering India.
In these categories of cases, after service of deportation
notice, the present procedure of Tribunal will follow.
You are, the_refore, requested to issue necessary o
instructions of the points mentioned above to all concerned
under intimation to Government. These instructions are
intended to make our officers cautions the matter of detection
and deportation and should not be interpreted to mean any
relaxation in the matter of vigilance, detection and deportation E
of Pakistani infiltrants.
SECRET
MemoNo.PA(V//)1621200 Dated, Shillong the 29th
June, 1966.
F
Copy to Shri H.K. Bhattacharyya, /PS (All D./s. G/Ss.
P) for information and necessary action.
Sdl- B.K. Barua,
Inspector General G
of Police, Assam.
39. It will be seen that the number of tribunals set up is
abysmally low resulting in an abysmally low number of decisions
by these tribunals. What is interesting to know is that whereas
H
808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A almost 1,50, 000 persons were deported between 1961 to 1965
under The Immigrants (Expulsion of Assam) Act, 1950, the
number of deportations from 1985 till date is stated to be a
mere 2,000 odd. Even these deportees are mostly if not all
"push backs" which results in the same deportees coming back
B post deportation from a border which is completely porous.
40. It will be seen that the Assam portion of the border
with Bangladesh is 267 Kms. Outofwhich44 Kms. are riverine.
We are given to understand .that the entire border between
India and Bangladesh is roughly 4000 Kms. The White Paper
C shows th at large portions of the border with Assam are yet to
be fenced with double coil wire fencing, making the border an
easy place to cross. Also, we are given to understand that
most parts of the border with West Bengal and other North-
Eastern States are also porous and very easy to cross.
D
41. We are at loss to understand why 67 years after
independence the Eastern border is left porous. We have been
reliably informed that the entire Western border with Pakistan
being 3300 Kms. long, is not only properly fenced but properly
E manned as well and is not porous at any point.
42. In the light of the above, we tiave considered the
necessity of issuing appropriate directions to the Union of India
and the State of Assam to ensure that effective steps are taken ·
to prevent illegal access to the country from Bangladesh; to
F detect foreigners belonging to the stream of 1.1.1966 to
24.3.1971 so as to give effect to the provisions of Section
6(3) & (4) of the Citizenship Act and to detect and deport all
illegal migrants who have come to the State of Assam after
25.3.1971. Before issuing any such directions, we had thought
G it proper to require the Union as well as the State of Assam to
state, on affidavits, their respective stands in the matter and
also their suggestions, if any. Both the Union as well as the
State of Assam have responded by filing affidavits sworn by
duly authorized officials. We have taken note of the contents
. H · of the said affidavits which disclose that both the Union and
ASSAM SANMILITAMAHASANGHA& ORS. v. UNION OF 809
INDIA& ORS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

the State are broadly in agreement in respect of the steps that A
are required to be taken as well as the action taken till date
and further the measures that are required to be taken in the
future. It will be appropriate if the relevant contents of the
affidavit filed by the Union are extracted below.
"5(Vlll). Effective Border guarding to check and control B
illegal immigration
(i) Intensive 24x7 patrolling by the Border Security
Force (BSF) along the lndo-Bangladesh border.
(ii) Identification of vulnerable patches/routes by 15th c
January 2015 from where Bangladeshi nationals
are managing to enter into the country illegally.
After identification of these vulnerable patches
routes, security and vigilance will be strengthened
at these points along the identified routes used for D
illegal infiltration.
(iii) Persons who are intercepted at the international
border will be sent back then and there to
Bangladesh. .
E
(iv) Illegal infiltrators will be interrogated by the State
Police in the presence of BSF personnel who have
managed to enter into the territory of the country
,, for identification of routes they had taken for
entering into the country. Security will be further F
strengthened on such routes/areas. BSF
personnel, if any, found to be involved in helping
illegal infiltrators for crossing international border
will be punished as per/aw-. BSF will keep close
vigil on the international border through its G
intelligence branch with immediate effect.
(v) Besides, intelligence agencies will be geared up
with immediate effect for keeping close vigil along
the international border and also reporting to the
H
810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014].14 S.C.R.

A concerned authorities including BSF on illegal
infiltrations.
(vi) Border fencing: A project worth Rs. 6337 crore has
been sanctioned for' fencing 3326 km of lndo
Bangladesh border including restoration of
B damaged fence (total length 4096. 7 km of the
border of which 2980. 7 km. is land border and 1116
km. is riverine border [the length of riverine border
keeps varying from season tq season]). Out of 3326
Km, fencing has been completed in 2828 km.
c . ·Construction work offencing is in progress in 78. 80.
km. which is likely tO be completed by May 2016.
In 102.4 km fencing is not feasible due to low-lying
difficult hilly terrain. Work in 24.2 km is at estimate
· ·revised estimate stage. Due to boundary issues
D · which are yet to be resolved between India and
Bangladesh in 19 km, construction of fencing could
not be completed. Action has been initiated to
resolve the boundary issues with Bangladesh.
Fencing work cannot be started in 188 km due to
E delay in land acquisition by the concerned State
Governments of Tripura (11 Kin.), West Bengal (86
- . Km.) and Assam (3.5 Km.). In case of Meghalaya
State earlier the issue of pending land acquisition
was for about 135 km. However, due to constant
F persuasion by the Ministry of Home Affair at the
highest level, the matter was partially resolved and
fencing is completed in such stretches except for
23. 63 km. in which work in progress. Presently, the
land acquisition is pending for about 87.5 km. in
G Meghalaya. The Matter has been taken up with the
State Governments of Meghalaya, Tripura, West
Bengal and Assam for early acquisition of land for
construction of fencing at various levels. Matter is
being. followed up with them regularly. Besides,
H environmental! forest clearance is also required
ASSAM SANMILITAMAHASANGHA& ORS. v. UNION OF 811
INDIA& ORS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

for erection offencing in 61.6 km. areas falling in A
Dampa Tiger Reserve, Mizoram. The matter was
discussed in the National Board of Wildlife (NBWL)
meeting held on 12th August, 2014. The NBWL
had recommended the project with certain
conditions. Action has been initiated for B
compliance of the conditions imposed by the
NBWL. Public protest is continuing in 24 km by
the people of Meghalaya opposing the construction
of fencing along India-Bangladesh border. The
State of Meghalaya has been requested to resolve c
the issue expeditiously. It may be mentioned that
where construction of fencing work is in progress
or fencing is to be constructed in future, in such
areas the presence of BSF will be increased to
ensure that illegal Bangladeshi nationals may not D
sneak into the Indian territory clandestinely.
(vii) Construction of roads: To facilitate proper patrolling
by the BSF along lndo-Bangladesh border, a
project for construction of road has been
undertaken. Construction of 4379 km length of E
road along lndo-Bangladesh border has been
sanctioned. Out of which 3769. 9 km construction
work has been completed and work is in progress
in 160.23 km which is likely to be completed by
May 2016. In 222.07 km construction work is not F
feasible due to hilly terrain/low-lying areas. Work
in 52.153 km is at estimate/revised estimate stage.
In 174. 65 km work cannot be started due to various
· reasons mainly delay in land acquisition by the
State Governments concerned. Matter has been . G
taken up with the State Governments of Meghalaya,
Tripura, West Bengal and Ass.am for early
acquisition of land for construction of roads. Matter
is being followed up with them regularly.
H
812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 14 S.C.R. ·

A (viii) Installation of Flood lights along lndo-Bangladesh
border: Further, a project worth Rs. 1327 crore for
installation of flood lights along the border to keep
close vigil at night has been started in 2840 km
along lndo-Bangladesh border areas. Work has
B been completed in 1874 kms. Work is in progress
in 330 km .. which is likely to be completed by May
2016. Installation of flood lights is not feasible in
219.4 km due to low-lying arealdifficulthil/y terrain.
It may be mentioned that the flood lights can be
c installed only after construction of fence and roads
along the border. Therefore, the work of floodlights
in about 416.6 km. could not be started due to
pending fence work. As stated above, the matter
has been taken up with the State Governments of
o Meghalaya, Tripura, West Bengal and Assam for
early acquisition of land. Matter is being followed
up with them regularly.
(ix) Initially, 802 Border Out Posts (BOPs) were set up
along lndo-Bangladesh border for effective
E.
guarding of the border. In order to reduce the gap
between the two BOPs, 383 additional BOPs have
been sanctioned. Out of these, 65 BOPs have been
established. Work is going on in 78 BOPs which is
targeted to be completed by December, 2016. For
F the remaining BOPs, work can be started only after
the acquisition of land by the State Governments
concerned. Matter has been taken up with the State
Governments ofMeghalaya, Tripura, West Bengal
and Assam for early acquisition of land for
G construction of BOPs. Matter is. being followed up
with them regularly.
(x) BSF has deployed 28 numbers of speed boats
(single engine), 40 numbers of rigid inflatable
speed boats, 48 ·numbers of aluminium country
H
ASSAM SANMILITAMAHASANGHA& ORS. v. UNION OF . 813
INDIA& ORS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.)
'
boats, 2 double 'engine speed boats, 58 engine A·
fitted country'boats along lndo-Bang/adesh bor<Jer
(Assam sector) for guar<Jing of riverine areas. In
order to make effective guarding o( riverine
international border.additional 1.0 double engine
speed boats and five 20 meters medium vessels B
wili be procured within six to 12 months. Effective
guar<Jing of riverine oreas in other sectorS are also
being done by the BSF. .
(xi) It may be mentioned that the timelines indicated
above, for the border infrastructure works, are
tentative in nature and the targets are subject to.
the condition that the "in-progress" works are no(
stalled due to the unforeseen situations iike floods,
/and-slides, public protests, litigations, etc. Further,• . .
it is stated that the sanctioned and completed 0
· status of the border infrastructure mentioned in ·
paras (vi) to (ix) are dynamic in nature due to the
difficult terrain along the bor<Jer areas coupled with
floods, land-slide, breach in fence: etc. . . .
(xii) Regular village co-or<Jination m~etings are being . E .
· organised by the field commanders of BSF to
sensitise the bor<Jer popi.Jlatiori. Further, effective
action will be taken for sensitising the villagers
· living along the border areas, particularly in case F
any new person is seen in the village, they should
report. the matter to the local police chowki.
· ·· Besides, village defence parties shall also be
activated within one month along the international
._ . bor<Jer to keep close vigil in _this regard who will G.
report to the local Police Stations. .
(xiii)3153 Security personnel provided to the State of
Assam tinder Prevention of Infiltration of
Foreigners (P/F) scheme to act as second line of
defence and assist the BSF to check the illegal H
814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 14 S.C.R:

A infiltration from Bangladesh. The State of Assam
will be advised to use and deploy the PIF personnel
to act effectively with .immediate effect.
. ' '
(xiv) 4 additional battalions of BSF will be raised in the
next financial year 2015-16 for deployment along
B the international lndo Bangladesh border. Out of 4
BSF battalions,
.
one ;'each will be deployed along
lndo-Bangladesh border (Assam sector and West
Bengal sector), remaining two will be as training
battalions."
c
43. In addition to what has been extracted above, the
Union, in the affidavit filed, has also stated that for the purpose
of detection of illegal migrants'500 police units/task force will
be activated in the State within one month.
D 44. The affidavit ofthe Union also indicates that in addition
to the 36 Foreigners Tribunals which are claimed to be
functioning in the State ofAssam, 64 additional Tribunals have
been sanctioned in June, 2013. The affidavit of the State of
Assam indicates that steps· are underway for making the
E aforesaid Tribunals functional.
45. Insofar as the mechanism of deportation of illegal
migrants after they are detected to be illegal migrants is
concerned, paragraph 25 of the affidavit of the Union which
deals with the said aspect of the matter may also be noticed:
F
"25. It is submitted that the existing mechanism!
procedure for verification of nationality inter alia include
that State Government provides details of declared
person in a prescribed format· indicating full details!
contact address in Bangladesh including photographs
G
to the Ministry of Home Affairs. Such cases received
from the State Government are referred to the Ministry
of External Affairs for taking up the matter of verification
of nationality with Bangladesh authorities through
. diplomatic channel. The Ministry of External Affairs
ASSAM SANMILITAMAHASANGHA& ORS. v. UNION OF 815
INDIA& ORS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

refers such cases to Bangladesh authorities. Such A
cases are investigated by the Bangladesh Home
Ministry and they send their report to Bangladesh
Foreign Ministry. In tum they intimate Indian Ministry
of External.Affairs about the nationality verification or
status of such persons. If some of the cases are not B ·
confirmed by them, in that event we request the
Bangladesh authorities from the Bangladesh High
Commission or Deputy High Commissions in Kolkata
or Mumbai, as the case may be, to avail of consular
access for interaction with such detained persons. The c
Bangladesh authorities depute their represe_ntative for
interaction with such persons who are detained in
detention centres/jails. If such persons disclose their
addresses in the Bangladesh then their nationality is
confirmed. Some of them still claim that they are Indian o
nationals and in thatevent Bangladesh authorities are
unable to confirm/nationality of such persons. Persons
whose nationalities are confirmed by the Bangladesh
authorities, are repatriated to Bangladesh immediately.
It is men,tioned that many of the declared illegal E .
migrants do.not disclose their address, cbntacts of their
relatives in Bangladesh. In such cases, it becomes very
difficult for Bangladesh authorities for verification of
nationality of these persons. In the current years
nationality of 32 Bangladeshi nationals who were in the F
detention centres/jails in Assam were confirmed by the
. Bangladesh authorities and they· have been
repatriated."
46. On an overall consideration of the immediate
dimensions of the issues and the potential that the same have G
for the future we issue the following directions under Article
142 of the Constitution of India.

H
816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A I. Border fencing, Border Roads and provision for
flood lights ·
The Union will take all effective steps to complete the
fencing (double coiled wire fencing) in such parts/portions of
the lndo-Bangla border (including the State of Assam) where
B presently the fencing is yet to be completed. The vigil along
the riverine boundary will be effectively maintained by
continuous patrolling. Such part of the international border
which has been perceived to be inhospitable on account of
·the difficult terrain will be patrolled and monitored at vulnerable
C points that could provide means of ii.legal entry. Motorable
roads alongside the international border, wherever incomplete
or have not yet been built, will be laid so as to enable effective
and intensi\le patrolling. Flood lights, wherever required, will
also be provided while maintaining the present arrangements.
D The completed part of the border fencing will be maintained
and repaired so as to constitute an effective barrier to cross
border trafficking. ''
I
The progress achieved at the end of 3 months from today
E as against the position on the ground mentioned in the affidavit
of the Union extracted above will be monitored by this Court
and, depending on what is revealed upon such monitoring,
further directions including a definite time schedule for
completion of the works relating to border fencing, border roads
F and flood lights may be made by this Court.
II. Foreigners Tribunals
The Gauhati High Court is requested to expedite and to
finalise the process of selection of the Chairperson and
Members of the Foreigners Tribunals, if required in phases,
G depending on the availability of officers opting to serve in the
Tribunals. Within 60(sixty) days of the selection being finalized
by the Gauhati High Court, the State of Assam will ensure that
the concerned Foreigners Tribunal become operational.

H
ASSAM SANMILITAMAHASANGHA& ORS. v. UNION OF 817
INDIA&ORS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]

The Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court is requested A
to monitor the functioning of the Tribunals by constituting a
Special Bench which will sit at least once every month to
oversee
·, . the functioning of the Tribunals.
Ill. Existing Mechanism of Deportation of Declared
Illegal Migrants B

While taking note of the existing mechanism/procedure
for deportation keeping in view the requirements of international
protocol, we direct the Union of lridia to enter into necessary
discussions with the Government of Bangladesh to streamline c
the procedure of deportation. The result of the said exercise
be laid before the Court on the next date fixed.
4 7. The implementation .of the aforesaid directions will
be monitored by.this Court on the expiry of three months from
today. In the event it becomes so necessary, the Court will D
entrust such monitoring to be undertaken by an empowered
committee which will be constituted by this Court, if and when
required.
48. Insofar as Writ Petition (C) No. 274/2009 is
.concerned, we are of the view that on and from the date of this E
judgment the following time schedule should govern the work
ofupdating of the NRC in Assam so that the entire updated
NRC is published by the end of January, 2016.
1. Preparatory work such as selection of vendor system F
(system integrator); development by system
integrator; appointment of staff and training etc. has
already been directed to be completed by the end of
January 2015 by order dated 27.11.2014 of the
Court. G
2. The remaining .work of updating the NRC will now
conform to the following time schedule which will be
stridly adhered to.

H
818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 14 S.C.R.

A SI. Task Period in Start End
No. Months ·-- ·--~-~

I. Publication of
Records- I February, 2015 February, 2015·
I Search/looking up of
linkage l~y publi~
r ----- ---- -- ---- - -
B 2. ! Receipt of 3 March, 2015 May,2015
appli.;alions
-------
3. V'erification 4 June, 2015 September, 2015

4. Draft Pub Iicaiion I st October,
2015
c
5. Receipt of Claims & I October, 2015 October, 20 l 5 .
Objections ---
- ·-
6. Disposal of Claims & 2 Nove1nber, Dece1nber, 2015
Objections 2015
.

I Janu~ry,
51
D 7. Finalization of final
updated NRC 2016
- .. -- -- - - - -----
Total Time Period II
in Months

49. All the cases be listed in the last week of March, 2015
E to take note of the progress of implementation of the above
directions.

Kalpana K. Tripathy Directions issued.