Holding

The IMDT Act and its Rules are ultra‑vires the Constitution and are struck down; the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 shall apply to Assam.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined a public‑interest writ petition challenging the constitutionality of the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 (IMDT Act) and its 1984 Rules, which were applicable only to Assam for detecting and deporting illegal migrants. The Court held that the Act and Rules were ultra‑vires the Constitution because they violated Article 14 (equality) and Article 355 (Union’s duty to protect states) and because they placed the burden of proof on the State rather than on the alleged migrant, making detection and deportation ineffective. Consequently, the IMDT Act and Rules were struck down, the Foreigners Act, 1946 and its 1964 Tribunal Order were held to apply to Assam, and the tribunals created under the IMDT Act were ordered to cease functioning. All pending cases were to be transferred to the Foreigners Act tribunals, and the respondents were directed to constitute sufficient tribunals under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964.

Issues considered

The constitutional validity of the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 and its Rules, 1984
Whether the Act violates Article 14 of the Constitution by discriminating against Assam
Whether the Act contravenes Article 355 by impeding the Union's duty to protect the state from external aggression and internal disturbance
Whether the procedural scheme of the Act violates Article 21 by not being just, fair and reasonable
The allocation of the burden of proof under the IMDT Act versus the Foreigners Act

Legislation cited

Citizenship Act, 1955s. 6A
Constitution of Indias. 14, s. 21, s. 29(1), s. 35, s. 355, s. 51A(d)
Foreigners Act, 1946s. 14, s. 14A, s. 14B, s. 14C, s. 2, s. 3, s. 4, s. 5, s. 6, s. 7, s. 8, s. 9
Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964
Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 106
Passport Act, 1967
Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920

Subjects

illegal migrationconstitutional validityArticle 14Article 355burden of proofforeigners acttribunal procedurepublic interest litigationAssam Accordnational security

Judgment

A
SARBANANDA SONOWAL
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

JULY I2, 2005
B I
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., G.P. MA THUR AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.]

Jllegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1_983:

C Jllegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Rules, 1984:

Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 14 and 355:

Act and Rules made applicable only to the State of Assam with
overriding effect over Foreigners Act-For the purpose of effective delection
D .and deportation of il!egal migrants-Jn the rest of the Country Foreigners
Act and Rules thereunder applicable-Constitutional validity pf the Act and
the Rules challenged-Held: the Act and the Rules are ultra vires the
Constitution-Procedure under Foreigners Act was far more effective in
detection and deportation of illegal migrants than the impugned Act-Rather
E it is so made as to give advantage to the illegal migrants and not for
achieving the real objective of the enactment-The provisions negate the
constitutional mandate under Article 355-Applicability of the Act to the
State of Assam alone, having no rational nexus with the policy and object
of the Act, is violative ofArticle 14-The Act has stripped Central Government
of its power to remove illegal migrants provided under Foreigners Act,
F Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, Passport (Entry into India) Ac/-
Tribunals constituted under the Act will cease to function and the cases
pending before it would be transferred to Tribunals constituted under
Foreigners Act-Passport (entry Into India) Act, 1920-Foreigners Act,
1946-Foreigners (Tribunals) Orders, 1964-Immigrants (Expulsion from
G Assam) Act, 1950-Passport Act, 1967-Citizenship Act, 1955-Section 6A-
Evidence Act, 1872-Section 106.

Words and Phrases:

'Aggression '-Meaning of in the context of Constitution of India.

H 472
SARBANANDA SONOWAL v. U.0.1. 473

Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 and Illegal A
Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Rules, 1984 were made applicable to
the State of Assam with the professed aim of making detection and deportation
of illegal migrants residing in the State of Assam. Writ Petition u/A 32 of
the Constitution of India was filed by way of Public Interest Litigation seeking
declaration of certain provisions of the Act as ultra vires the Constitution of B
India and declaration of Rules, as ultra vires the Constitution and also u/s 28
of the Act and also sought declaration that Foreigners Act, 1946 and Rules
made thereunder shall apply to the State of Assam.

Allowing the Petition, the Court

HELD: I.I. The provisions of the Illegal Migrants (Determination by C
Tribunals) Act, 1983 (IMDT Act) are ultra vires the Constitution of India.
The Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Rules, 1984 are also ultra
vires and are struck down. (542-C; 543-A)

1.2. The procedure under the Foreigners Act and also under the D
Fortigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 is far more effective in identification and
deportation of foreigners as compared to the procedure under the IMDT Act
and the Rules made thereunder. There being no corresponding provision like
Section 9 of the Foreigners Act which places the burden of proof upon the
person concerned who claims to be an Indian citizen, which is absolutely
essential in relation to the nature of inquiry being conducted regarding E
determination ofa person's citizenship (where the facts on the basis of which
an opinion is to be formed and a decision is taken are entirely within the
knowledge of the said person) has made the task of the law enforcement
agencies of the State not only difficult but virtually impossible. The IMDT
Act has been so enacted and the Rules thereunder have been so made that F
innumerable .and unsurmountable difficulties are created in the matter of
identification and deportation of illegal migrants. The application of the IMDT
Act and the Rules made thereunder in the State of Assam has created the
biggest hurdle and is the main impediment or barrier in identification and
deportation of illegal migrants. On the contrary, it is coming to the advantage
of such illegal migrants as any proceedings initiated against them under the G
said provision which almost entirely ends in their favour, enables them to have
a ~ocument having official sanctity to the effect that t~y are not mega\
migrants. (529-A-F) ·

1.3. There is good and sound reason for placing the burden of proof
upon the person concerned who asserts to be a citizen of a particular country. H
474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A In order to establish one's citizenship, normally he may be required to give
evidence of (i) his date of birth (ii) place of birth (iii) name of his parents (iv)
their place of birth and citizenship. Some times the place of birth of his grand
parents may also be relevant like under Section 6-A(l)(d) of the Citizenship
Act. If the State authorities dispute the clai"! of citizenship by a person and
B assert that he is a foreigner, it will not only be difficult.but almost impossible
for them to first lead evidence on the aforesaid points. This is in accordance
with the underlying policy of Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that
when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of
proving that fact is upon him. Though in a criminal case the general rule is
that the burden of proof is on the prosecution but if any fact is especially
C within the knowledge of the accused, he has to lead evidence to prove the said
fact. [505-G-H; 506-A-B]

Shambhu Nath Mehra v. The State of Ajmer, ·AIR (1956) SC 404;
Collector of Customs, Madras v. D. Bhoormull, AlR {1974) SC 859; State of
West Bengal v. Meer Mohd. Umar, [2000J 8 SCC 382; ~anjai@ Kaka v. State,
D (NCT ofDelhi), (2001] 3 SCC 190 and Ezhil v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR (2002)
SC 2017, relied on.

R .. v. Oliver, [1943] All ER 800 and R. v. Turner (1916) 5 Mand S 206
14 Digest 430; Williams v. Russel (1993) 149 LT 190; referred to.

E 1.4. IMDT Act cannot be said to be providing a very fair procedure for
determining whether a person is an illegal migrant or not. The Screening
Committee does not consist of any judicial member but is manned by the
executive. The same is the case with the Competent Authority. But the
Screening Committee or the Competent Authority have the power to reject
F an enquiry at the threshold by not making a reference to the Tribunal. The
figures supplied in the affidavits show that more than 85 per cent of the
enquiries were rejected in this manner. [520-B, C, DJ

1.5. Realising the serious law and order problem created by migration
from East Pakistan and the serious situation arising therefrom Immigrants
G (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 was enacted and conferred very wide powers
upon the Central Government to direct removal of any person outside India.
However, on .account of Section 4 of the IMDT Act the 1950 Act has been
superseded and the provisions of the said Act have ceased to apply to the State
of Assam. Thus by enacting the IMDT Act the Parliament has divested the
Central Government of the power to remove migrants from Bangladesh, whose
H presence was creating serious law and order problem, which fact had been
SARBANANDA SONOWAL v. U.0.1. 475

realized by the Central Government as early as in 1950. The IMDT Act instead A
ofmaintaining peace has only revived internal disturbance.
[530-H; 531-A, BJ

1.6. The provisions of the The Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 have
been superseded by Section 4 of the IMDT Act. It has stripped the Central .
Government of its power of removal of such person from India and also the B
power of arrest of such person without warrant possessed by a police officer
of the rank of Sub-Inspector or above. (531-C, H; 532-A]

2.1. Provisions of the IMDT Act and the Rules made thereunder clearly
negate the constitutional mand~te contained in Article 355 of the Constitution, C
where a duty has been cast upon the Union of India to protect every State
against external aggressiOn and internal disturbance. The IMDT Act which
contravenes Article 355 of the Constitution is, therefore, wholly
unconstitutional and must be struck down. [532-B]

2.2. The foremost duty of the Ce~tral Government is to defend the D
borders of the country, prevent any trespass and make the life of the citizens
safe and secure. The Government has also a duty to prevent any internal
disturbance and maintain law and order. Article 355 of the Constitution of
India deals with Duty of the Union to protect States against external aggressjon
and internal disturbance. [522-D]
E
Arthashastra by Kautilya translated by Shri L.N. Rangarajan, referred
to.

2.3. The word "aggression" is a word of very wide import. The word
"aggression" is not to be confused only with "war". Though war would be
included within the ambit and scope of the word "aggression" but it comprises F
many other acts which cannot be termed as war. "Aggression" is a word of
very wide import having complex dimensions and would to a large extent depend
upon fact situation and its impact. The word "aggression" is, therefore, an
all comprehensive word having very wide meaning. Its meaning cannot be
explained by a straight jacket formula but will depend on the fact situation of G
every case. The framers of the Constitution have consciously used the word
"aggression" and not "war" in Article 355. (523-A-B-C]

Kawasaki v. Bantahm S.S. Company, (1938) 3 All ER 80 and Chae Chan
Ping v. United States, 130 US 581, referred to.
H
476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A Introduction to International Law by J.G. Starke; Indian Journal of
International Law Vol. 11 (1971) p. 724 and Essays on Modern Law of War
by L.C. Green; Conflict through Consensus by Julius Stone (1977 Edn.),
reierred to.

2.4. Presence of such a large number of illeg~I migrants froi:n
B Bangladesh, which runs into millions, is in fact an "aggression" on the State
of Assam and has also contributed significantly in causing serious "internal
disturbances" in the shape of insurgency of alarming proportion making the
life of the people of Assam wholly insecure and the panic generated thereby
has created a fear psychosis. This has resulted in seriously hampering the
C growth of the State of Assam although it has vast natural resources as people
from rest of the country have a general perception that it is a disturbed area
and this factor has resulted in not generating any employment opportunity
which has contributed to a large measure in giving rise to insurgency. The
impact is such that it not only affects the State of Assam but it also affects its
sister States like Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Nagaland, etc. as the route
D to the said places passes through the State of Assam. [S29-G-H; 530-A]

3.1. Since the classification made whereby IMDT Act is made applicable
only to the State of Assam has no rational nexus with the policy and object of
the Act, it is clearly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and is liable to
be struck down on this ground also. The influx of Bangladeshi nationals who
E have illegally migrated into Assam pose a threat to the integrity and security
of north-eastern region. Their presence has changed the demographic
character of that region and the local people of Assam have been·reduced to
a status of minority in certain districts. In such circumstances, if the
Parliament had enacted a legislation exclusively for the State of Assam which
p was more stringent than the Foreigners Act, which is applicable to rest of
India, and also in the State of Assam for identification of such persons who
migrated from the territory of present Bangladesh between 1st January, 1966
to 24th March, 1971, such a legislation would have passed the test of Article
14 as the differentiation so made would have had rational nexus with the avowed
policy and objective of the Act. But the mere making of a geographical
G classification cannot be sustained where the Act instead of achieving the object
of the legislation defeats the very purpose for which the legislation has be.en
made. For satisfying the test of Article 14, the geographical factor alone in
making a classification is not enough but there must be a nexus with the
objects sought to be achieved. If geographical consideration becomes the sole
H criteria completely overlooking the other aspect of"rational nexus with the
SARBANANDA SONOWALv. U.0.1. 477
policy and object of the Act" it would be open to the legislature to apply A
enactments made by it to any sub-division or district within the State and leaving
others at its sweet will. This is not the underlying spirit or the legal principle
on which Article 14 is founded. (533-G-H; 534-A-D)

3.2. Even though an order may have been passed under the Foreigners
Act against an illegal migrant, he gets a right to make a representation to B
the Central Government for making a reference to the Tribunal, which will
then proceed in accordance with IMDT Act having a further right of appeal to
the Appellate Tribunal. There being no provision like Section 9 of the
Foreigners Act regarding burden of proof in the IMDT Act, the whole
complexion of the case will change in favour of the illegal migrant. This right C
is not available to any other person similarly situated against whom an order
under the Foreigners Act may have been passed, if he is in any other part of
India other than the State of Assam. (529-B)

Budhan Chaudhry v. State of Bihar, AIR (1955) SC 191; D.P. Joshi v.
State of Madhya Bharat, AIR (1955) SC 334; Kishan Singh v. State of D
Rajasthan, AIR (1955) SC 795; Gopi Chandv. Delhi Administration AIR (1959)
SC 609; Kangshari Haldar v. State of West Bengal, AIR (1960) SC 457 and
Clarence Pais v. Union of India, (2001) 4 SCC 325, referred to.
(532-D, F-G)

4. In a criminal trial where a person is prosecuted and punished for E
commission of a crime and may thus be deprived of his life or liberty, it is not
enough that h~ is prosecuted in accordance with the procedure prescribed by
law but the procedure should be such which is just, fair and reasonable. This
principle can have no application here for the obvious reason that in the matter
of identification of a foreigner and his dt:Jlortation, he is not being deprived of F
his life or personal liberty. The deportation proceedings are not proceedings
for prosecution where a man may be convicted or sentenced. The Foreigners
Act and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 are applicable to whole of
India and even to the State of Assam for identification of foreigners who have
entered Assam between lst January, 1966 and 24th March, 1971 in view of
the language used in Section 6-A of Citizenship Act. It is, therefore, not open G
to Union oflndia or State of Assam or for that matter anyone to contend that
the procedure prescribed in the aforesaid enactment is not just, fair and
reasonable and thus violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. The procedure
under the Foreigners Act and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 is just,
fair and reasonable and does not offend any constitutional provision. H
(535-F-H; 536-A-B)
478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A 5. It cannot be said that aliens also possess several rights and the
procedure for their identification and deportation should be detailed and
elaborate in order to ensure fairness to them. The Bangladeshi nationals 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
B India and they are liable to be deported. [536-C; 539-F]

Louis De Raedt v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 554 and State of
Arunachal Pradesh v. KhudiRam Chakma, (1994) Supp. SCC 615, relied on.
[539-A, CJ

Rex v. Bottrill, (1947) 1 K.B. 41; Attorney-Genera/for Canada v. Cain,
C (1906) AC 542; Chae Chan Ping v. United States, (193~) U.S. 581; Fong Yue
Ting v. United States 149 U.S. 698 and Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142,
652, referred to. (537-C, D, F; 538-A, F)

Introduction to International Law by J.G. Starke (1st Indian re-print
D 1994) Chapter 12 (page 348); Oppenheim 's International Law (Ninth Edn.
1992 - 400, 401 and 413, referred to. (536-C, HJ

6. It cannot be said that vires of a special statute seeking to make some
provisions or some defined object cannot be challenged by comparing its
provisions with a general statute covering the field. The principle has no
E application to the fact situation of the present case. The contention of the
petitioner is not that merely because the provisions of the IMDT Act provide
many safeguards to an alleged illegal migrant in comparison to the Foreigners
Act the IMDT Act is ultra vires. The contention is that as the Statement of
Objects and Reasons show that the influx of foreigners who illegally migrated
into India across the borders' of the sensitive Eastern and North-Eastern
F regions of the country and have remained in the country, pose a threat to the
integrity and security of the said region and further.their continuance in India
has given rise to serious problems and also the clandestine manner in which
these persons are trying to pass off as citizens of India has rendered their
detection difficult and there being need for their speedy detection and the
G interest of general public, a classification was made on geographical basis
whereby the Act was enforced only in the State of Assam in supersession to
the Foreigners Act. But the Act so made contains such provisions and
prescribes such procedure that it has become virtually impossible to detect
and deport a foreigner which is evident from the statistical data furnished by
the respondent themselves. The basis of differentiation. has thus no nexus with
H the object sought to be achieved and, therefore, the classification made for
SARBANANDA SONOWAL v. U.0.1. 479
application of IMDT Act to·the State of Assam violates Article 14 and is A
consequently liable to be struck down. (539-G; 540-B-E]

The Special Courts Bill, (178) AIR (1979) SC 478 and A.R. Antulay v.
R.S. Nayak, AIR (1988) SC 153, referred to.

7. Section 8 of the IMDT Act is not similar to Section 9 of the B
Citizenship Act. Section 9 of the Citizenship Act applies to a situation where
the question is whether an Indian citizen has lost his citizenship by acquiring
the citizenship of a foreign country. Such a question can be decided only by
the Central Government. The present case is concerned with identification
and deportation of such Bangladeshi nationals who have illegally crossed the
international border and have taken up residence in Assam. The question of C
loss of Indian citizenship on account of acquisition of citizenship of another
country does not at all arise for consideration here. [540-F-G]

8. Article 51-A(d) of the Constitution says that it shall be the duty of
every citizen oflndia to defend the country and render national service when
called upon to do so. If an Act made by legislature has the disastrous effect of D
giving shelter and protection to foreign nationals who have illegally
transgressed the international border and are residing in India and further
the Act is unconstitutional, any citizen is entitled to bring it to the notice of
the Court by filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.
(541-C-DJ E
Dr. D.C. Wadhwa v. State ofBihar, AIR (1987) SC 579 and R.K. Garg v.
Union ofIndia, AIR (1981) SC 2138, followed. (541-E; 542-A)
-t
Prof Yashpal and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh, JT (2005) 2 SC 165,
relied on. [542-B]
F
S.P. Guptav. Union of India, (1981) Supp. SCC 87, referred to.
[541-A]

9.1. The Tribunals and the Appellate Tribunals constituted under the
Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 shall cease to
function. The Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920, the Foreigners Act, 1946, G
the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 and the Passport Act, 1967
shall apply to the State of Assam. All cases pending before the Tribunals under
the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 shall stand
transferred to the Tribunals constituted under the Foreigners (Tribunals)
Order, 1964 and shall be decided in the manner provided in the Foreigners H
480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A Act, the Rules made thereunder and the procedure prescribed under the
Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. [542-C-E)

9.2. It will be open to the authorities of the Central Government or State
Government to initiate fresh proceedings under the Foreigners Act against
all such persons whose cases were not referred to the Tribunals constituted
B under the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 by the
competent authority whether on account of the recommendation of the
Screening Committee or any other reason whatsoever. The appeals pending
before the Appellate Tribunals shall be deemed fo have abated. (542-F, GJ

9.3. The respondents are directed to constitute sufficient number of
C Tribunals under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 to effectively deal
with cases of foreigners, who have illegally come fro_m Bangladesh or are
inegally residing in Assam. (543-EJ

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 131 of2000.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). '
D
Ashok H. Desai, Uday U. Lalit, Ms. Niti Dikshit, Prateek Jalan, Prashant
Kumar with them for the Petitioner.

Amarendra Sharan, Additional Solicitor General, K.K.Venugopal, M.N.
Krishnamani, Amit Bhandari, Ashok Bhan, Navin Prakash, Ms.Rekha Pandey,
E Ms. Purnima Bhat Kak, A. Subba Rao, Gaurav Aggarwal, Manish Tiwari, P.
Panneswaran, Ms. Sushama Suri, D.S. Mahra, Mrs.Anil Katiyar, S.B. Upadhay,
(NP}, Ms. Neelam Shanna, Tara Chandra Shanna, Ajay Shanna, Rupesh Kumar,
Tarun Shanna, Ms. Seema Bengani, Rituraj Biswas, Gopal Singh, Ms.Hemantika
Wahi, Ms. Sadhna Sandhu, Mrs. Monika Bapna, Shakil Ahmed Syed, V.K.
Sidharthan, J.R. Luwang, Atul Kumar, Anil Srivastava, Saurabh Srivastava,
F Ranjan Mukherjee, Azim H. Laskar, Anil K. Chopra, Abhijit Sengupta, Manish
Goswami, Sanjib Goswami, U.Hazarika and Ms. Sumita Hazarika with them for
the Respondents. t

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G G.P. MATHUR, J. I. This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution
of India has been filed by way of public interest litigation for declaring certain
provisions of the Illegal Migrants (Detennination by Tribunals) Act, (Act
No.39of1983) 1983 as ultra vires the Constitution oflndia, null and void and
consequent declaration that the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Rules made
thereunder shall apply to the State of Assam. The second prayer made is to
H declare the Illegal Migrants (Detennination by Tribunals) Rules, 1984 as ultra
SARBANANDA SONOWAL v. U.0.1. [G.P. MATHUR, J.) 481
vires the Constitution of India and also under Section 28 of the aforesaid Act A
and, therefore, null and void. Some more reliefs have been claimed which will
be referred to at the appropriate stage. The respondents to the writ petition
are the Union of India and the State of Assam.

2. The case set up in the writ petition is that the petitioner is a citizen
of India and is ordinarily resident in the State of Assam. He is a former B
President of the All Assam Students Union, which is the largest non-political
students organization in the State which was responsible for leading the
students movement in Assam in the late 1970s and early 1980s. He is also a
former Chainnan of the North East Students' Organisation, which is an umbrella
organization of students' association from Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, C
Nagaland1 Tripura and Arunachal Pradesh and has been actively involved in
issues conteming the rights of the people of Assam including the question
of illegal thigrants settled in the said State. The issues raised in the writ
petition concern all residents in the State of Assam whose rights as citizens
of India have been materially and gravely prejudiced by the operation of the
Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred D
to as "the IMDT Act"). The principal grievance of the petitioner is that the
'' IMDT Act is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminates against a class
of citizens of India, making it impossible for citizens who are residents in
Assam to secure the detection and deportation of foreigners from Indian soil.
The Foreigners Act, 1946, applies to all the foreigners throughout India, but E
the IMDT Act which was enacted subsequently with the professed aim of
making detection and deportation of the illegal migrants residing in Assam
easier has completely failed to meet even the standards prescribed in the
Foreigners Act. That apart, even those provisions of the IMDT Act which
afford some measure of protection to some genuine Indian citizens against
illegal migrants are not being properly enforced due to extraneous political F
considerations in derogation of the rights of Indian citizens living in Assam.
The result of the IMDT Act has been that a number of non-Indians, who
surreptitiously entered into Assam after March 25, 1971 without possession
of valid passport, travel documents or other lawful authority to do so, continue
to reside in Assam. Their presence has changed the whole character, cultural G
and ethnic composition of the area and the IMDT Act creates a situation
whereunder it has become virtually impossible to challenge the presence of
a foreigner and to secure his detection, deportation or even deletion of his
name from the electoral list as they get protection on account of the provisions
of the Act. According to the census figures, which have been given in the
writ petition, the rate of growth of the population in Assam is far more than H
482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. I S.C.R. r

A rest of India which shows that large number of foreigners have migrated to
different areas of Assam and have settled there. It is further averred that in
t
view of the problem of illegal migration of foreigners into Assam and their ;---
~

continued presence therein, a State wide protest movement of students was
organized which continued for a long period. As a result of the students'
movement and ensuing negotiations, a memorandum of settlement dated 15th
B August, 1985 was entered into between All Assam Students' Union and the
Union oflndia 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 illegal migrants from Assam and it 1also contained
a clause that "the Government will give due consideration to certain difficulties
c 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 India after 25th March, 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 No.65 of 1985 and Section 6A was inserted
D with the heading "Special 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 person of Indian
origin as defined under Section 6-A(3) who entered into Assam prior to 1st
E January, 1966 a~d has been resident in Assam since then is deemed to be a
citizen of India, However, if such a person entered into Assam between l st
January, 1966 and before 25th March, 1971 and has been detected to be a
foreigner under the Foreigners Act then he is not entitled to be included in
the electoral listfor a period of l 0 years from the date of detection. This
amendment of the Citizenship Act makes it clear that the, question of
F determination or detection of a foreigner is to be governed by the provisions
of the existing Central legislation, viz. the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the
Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. 'I

3. It is further pleaded that after signing of the As~am Accord, several
G assurances were given and sta~ements have bee11 made by the Central
Government that it is examining the failure of the IMDT Act regarding detection
and deportation of foreigners and it is considering steps to repeal the Act.
. A document was signed by Union Home Secretary and Chief Secretary of
Assam -on 27th January, 1990 regarding preparation of a time frame for class-
wise implementation of the Assam Accord and it was mentioned therein that
· H a decision on the repeal of the IMDT Act would be taken by 28th February,
SARBANANDA SON OW AL v. U.0.1. [G.P. MATHUR, J.) 483 ......
1991. In a meeting held on 20th September, 1990 between Union Home Minister, A
Chief Minister of Assam and representatives of All Assam Students' Union,
the student union reiterated their demand for repeal of the IMDT Act, which
demand was noted and an assurance was given that the Central Government
would initiate discussions with other political parties. The Uni~n Home Minister
in a meeting held on I Ith August, 1997, wherein the petitioner was also
present in his capacity as President of the AASU, stated that the results - B
achieved were extremely poor. It was decided therein that Home Minister
would visit certain sectors of Indo-Bangladesh border to take. stock of the
situation regarding illegal immigration and the inadequacy of the measures
taken to prevent such immigration. Reference has been made to certain other
meetings with the officers of Government oflndia (Ministry of_ Home Affairs) C
on 6th April, 1998 and 23rd September, 1998 wherein it was informed that the
repeal of the IMDT Act was under active consideration of the Government.
It is averred in paragraph 5 (viii)(f) of the writ petition that the President of
India in his address to the Parliament in February, 1999 said that the repeal
of the Act was under active consideration of the Government. A meeting was
again held on 18th March, 1999 between the representatives of the Government D
of India and Government of Assam and also of All Assam Students' Union,
wherein it was assured that the repeal of the !MDT Act was under active
consideration of the Central Government and measures would be taken to
identify foreigners and steps will be taken to seal the border. Copies of the
minutes of the meetings have been filed along with the writ petition. The E
difficulties created by .the provisions of the !MDT Act due to which it has
- become extremely difficult to identify an illegal migrant and pass a deportation
order have also been enumerated in detail. Figures regarding the inquiries
initiated since the enforcement of the Act in 1983 and total number of illegal
migrants expelled have been given to which we will refer to later on. It is also
pleaded that a huge number of Bangladesh nationals who have crossed over F
to India, have occupied vast tracts of land in sensitive international border
which has very serious implication for national security.

4. The Union of India filed a counter affidavit on 18th July, 2000, which
has been sworn by Shri Jatinder Bir Singh, Director, Ministry of Home Affairs. G
In paragraph 7 of this affidavit, it was stated that a proposal to repeal the
IMDT Act is under consideration of Government oflndia. A copy of the reply
given by Shri l.D. Swami, Minister of State in the Ministry of Home Affairs
in the Rajya Sabha on 8th March, 2000 has been filed as Annexure 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 H
-,

484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A detection of illegal migrants, who had come to the State of Assam after 1st
January, 1966 and up to 24th March, 1971 and the Illegal Migrants Determination
Tribunals under the IMDT Act have been constituted for detection and
deportation of illegal migrants, who had entered into India on or after 25~h
March, 1971. The Hon'ble Minister had further stated that the Government
is of the view that application of the IMDT Act to the State of Assam alone
B 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 seeking
deportation of all Bangladeshi nationals from India, has been filed as Annexure
R-1 to the Counter Affidavit and paragraphs 3 to 7 of the said status report
C are being reproduced below :

"3. Continuing influx ofBangladeshi nationals into India has been on
account of a variety of reasons including religious and economic.
There is a combination of factors on both sides which are responsible
for continuing influx of illegal immigration from Bangladesh. The
D important "Push Factors" on the Bangladesh side include: -

(a) steep and continuous increase in population;
(b) sharp deterioration in land-man ratio;
(c) low rates of economic growth particularly poor performance in
E agriculture;
The "Pull Factors" on the Indian side include:
(a) ethni~ proximity and kinship enabling easy shelter to the
immigrants;
F (b) porous and easily negotiable border with Bangladesh;
(c) better economic opportunities;
(d) interested religious and political elements encouraging immigration;

4. It is difficult to make a realistic estimate of the number ?f illegal
G immigrants from Bangladesh because they enter surreptitjously and
are able to mingle easily 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 recorded growth of population higher than the national
H average. The States of Meghalaya, Mizoram and Tripura have also
SARBANANDA SONOWAL v. U.0.1. [G.P. MATHUR, J.] 485

recorded high rates of population growth. Illegal immigrants from A
Bangladesh have also been using West Bengal as a corridor to migrate
to other parts of the country.

5. The large-scale influx of illegal Bangladesh immigrants has led to
large tracts of sensitive international borders being occupied by
foreigners. This has serious implications for internal security. B
6. The types of illegal migrants are as follows:

{a) those who came with valid visa/documents and overstayed;

(b) those who came with forged visa/documents; and
c
(c) those who entered surreptitiously.

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
March 25, 1971. Accordingly a circular was issued by the Government D
of India on 30.9.1972 setting out guidelines for aetion 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 March 1971 were not to be sent back and those who entered
India in or after the said date were to be repatriated."
E
In paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit it is stated that "the basic
objection of the petitioner is under consideration of the Central Government
that the IMDT Act and the Rules made thereunder are not effective in
comparison to the Foreigners Act, !946, which is applicable to the whole
country except to the State of Assam." In paragraph 18 of the counter F
affidavit it is stated that the administrative powers in respect of the IMDT Act
have been delegated to the Government of Assam under Section 21 of the
aforesaid Act. The second sub-paragraph of paragraph 18 and paragraph 19
of the counter affidavit are important and are being reproduced below :-

"It is further submitted that the detection/expulsion of illegal G
migrants under the IMDT Act, has bee_n extremely dismal. According
to the information furnished by the Government of Assam, the progress
in respect of detection/expulsion of illegal migrants (those who entered
Assam on or after 25.3.1971 upto 30.4.2000) is as follows:

H
486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A I Total number of enquiries initiated 3,10,759

2 Total number of enquiries completed 3,07,955

3 Total number of enquiries referred to Screening
Committee 3,01,986
B 4 Total number of enquiries made by the Screening 2,98,465
Committee

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
c
7 Total number of persons declared as illegal 10,015
migrants

8 Total number of illegal migrants physically 1,481
expelled
D
9 Total number.of illegal migrants to whom 5,733
expulsion order served ;

10 Total number of enquiries pending with Screenin~ 3,521
Committee
E 11 To.ta! number of enquiries pending with the 22,072
Tribunal ;,

in reply to para 9, it is submitted that the Chief Minister of Assam had
requested the then Prime Minister vide his Jetter dated 22.6.96 regarding
F repeal of the !MDT Act. The Chief Minister again reiterated for scrapping
the IMDT Act, vi de his Jetter dated 31. 7.96 addressed to the Home Minister.
This view has been reconfirmed by the State Govt. vide its message dated
23.4.98."

In paragraph 22 of the counter affidavit it is stated that a proposal to
G repeal the IMDT Act is under consideration of the Government of India and
in paragraph 24 it is stated that there is need for a uniform Act for detection
and deportation of foreigners for the entire country including Assam.

5. The State of Assam filed a counter affidavit on 28th August, 2000,
wherein· it is stated that the State Government has been persistently writing
H
SARBANANDA SONOWAL v. U.0.1. [G.P. MATHUR, J.] 487

to the Central Government that the IMDT Act is operating against national A
interest inasmuch as in view of the stringent provisions in the IMDT Act
regarding detection and deportation of foreigners, the illegal migrants whose
presence are in lakhs in the State of Assam could not be deported. The State
Government has thus been insisting upon the Central Government for repeal
of the IMDT Act. On account of unabated influx of illegal migrants from B
Bangladesh, a widespread movement started in Assam spearheaded by All
Assam Students' Union (AASU) in the year 1978-79 demanding expulsion of
such illegal migrants from Assam which as contended by the agitationists,
not only threatened their own existence in their own State but also threatened
security of the country. L~rge scale satyagrah, bandhs, dharnas, etc. were
organized by AASU and All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad and the agitation C
got mass support from the people. After several rounds of discussion, a
memorandum of settlement known as Assam Accord was signed on 15th
August, 1985 which, amongst others, envisaged the provision for detection
and deletion of name of foreigners from the electoral roll and also their
deportation. Paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit, which has a bearing on the
controversy in hand, is being reproduced below :- D
"8. That it is pertinent to mention that there has been a sharp increase
of the Muslim population in the Respondent/State in the last few
decades.

The statistical analysis of the sharp growth of Muslim population E
in Assam vis-a-vis Hindu population for the decades 1951-61, 1961-
71and1971-1991 is as follows:

Assam

Year Muslim Hindu F
1951-1961 38.37 33.70

1961-1971 30.99 37.18
..
1971-1991 77.42 41.89
G
(*Source Directorate of Census, Government of India)

The chart given above clearly indicates that Muslim population
of Assam has shown a rise of 77.42% in 1971-1991, whereas Hindu
population has risen by nearly 41.89% during the said period.
H
488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A There are three Districts in Assam, which has borders with
Bangladesh viz. Karimganj; Cachar and Dhubri. All India percentage
of decadal increase in population during l 9S l- l 99 l is 23.85% whereas
in the Border districts of Assam namely, Karimganj shows decadal
increase of 42.08%, Cachar district 47.59% and Dhubri district 56.57%.
From the above it can be assumed that the infiltration of foreigners
B from Bangladesh contributed significantly to the sharp increase of ,
population in Assam." I

'
In paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, the major impediment in
implementation of the IMDT Act have been pointed out in detail and it is also
C averred that the Act is discriminatory as it has been made applicable only to
the State of Assam and not to other States like West Bengal, Tripura and
Meghalaya, etc. which are facing similar problem of illegal migrants. Copies
of several communications sent to the Government of India by the State of
Assam requesting for repeal of the IMDT Act and also seeking appropriate
amendment to the Citizenship Act, 1955, in order to declare the children of
D the illegal migrants entering into India after 1971 as foreigners, have also been
filed. The difficulties in the implementation of the Act and the Rules have
been pointed out which we will advert to later on. It is further averred that
despite repeated advertisements and serious efforts, the State Government
has not been able to get qualified persons to fill in the vacant posts in the
E Tribunals. Figures as on 3 lst March, 2000, of total number of inquiries
initiated, total number of persons declared as illegal migrants and the number
of persons physically expelled have been given. It is specifically pleaded that
the IMDT Act is an ineffective piece of legislation and it is standing in the
way of detection and deletion of post 1971 foreigners in Assam and, therefore,
the same should be repealed.
F
6. However, on 8th August, 2001, the State of Assam moved I.A. No.5
of 200 l praying that the State of Assam be permitted to withdraw the earlier
affidavit filed on 28th August, 2000 and seeking permission to place on record
a new affidavit. In this affidavit it is averred that general elections were held
in the State of Assam in May 2001 wherein the Congress government had
G come to power replacing the government headed by Assam Gana Parishad.
The State Government in its Cabinet meeting held on 28th June, 200 l had
reviewed the earlier affidavit and had obtained a legal opinion in the matter.
It is further averred that "the affidavit filed by the former AGP led government
does not reflect the correct position of law and hence a new affidavit is
H required to be filed. The State Government is of the opinion that the IMDT
SARBANANDA SONOWAL v. U.0.1. [G.P. MATHUR, J.) 489

Act is constitutional and there is no question of either repeal or striking down A
of the Act." It is also averred that in the election manifesto of the Indian
National Congress in the just concluded elections, it was specifically declared
that the Act was introduced to save the Indian citizens from unnecessary
harassment in the name of detection of foreigners and the Congress party is
committed to oppose any move to repeal the Act. Apart from making a bald
statement that the IMDT Act is not arbitrary or discriminatory and denial of B
the averment that it makes the task of securing the detection and deportation
of foreigners impossible or that non-citizens are getting protection to the
detriment of bona fide citizens of India, nothing specific is stated nor any
specific statement made in the earlier affidavit or the facts and figures supplied
therein have been controverted. A general statement is made that the State C

-
of Assam i~ making all steps for effective implementation of the IMDT Act
and deportation of illegal migrants.

7. The aforesaid I.A. No.5 of 2001 came up for consideration before a
Three Judge Bench presided by the then Chief Justice of India on 15th
October, 2001 and the relevant portion of the order passed thereon is being D
reproduced below :~

"An application has been filed on behalf of the State of Assam
seeking permission to file "a new counter affidavit". The application
is supported by an affidavit of the Commissioner & Secretary, Home
Department, Government of Assam. E
Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing for the State
submits that he does not press prayer 'a' and that the affidavit which
has been filed along with this application, may be treated as 'an
additional affidavit'. Learned counsel appearing for other parties have
no objection to that course being adopted. We, therefore, take on F
record the new affidavit as an additional affidavit filed on behalf of
State of Assam and reject prayer 'a'. The application is allowed in
above terms.

Mr. Ashok Desai, learned senior counsel prays for and is granted
four weeks' time to file his response to the additional affidavit filed G
by the State. All other parties may also file their response, if any,
within the same period, to the additional affidavit.

List the writ petitions after four weeks before a three Judge Bench
for further proceedings."
H
490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A 8. The Union of India filed a counter affidavit sworn by 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 IMDT Act does not depend on political issues,
but depends on facts and legal grounds. The relevant part of the opening part
B 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 Bangladesh have not only
threatened the demographic structure of the area but have se~i~usly

c impaired the security of the nation, particularly in the present
circumstances. The need for expeditious identification of illegal migrants
is more pressing now than ever. It is not a matter of dealing with a
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.
-
D
The facts and figures which have been stated by the Union of
India in its affidavit filed in the case titled "Jamiat Ulama-E-Hind and
Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. Writ Petiti(!n (Civil) No. 7 of 2001"
clearly indicate that it is the existence of the IMDT Act, which has
been the single factor responsible for dismal detection and expulsion
E of illegal migrants in Assam. It has also been 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 IMDT Act, 1983 in
Assam virtually gives the illegal migrants, in' the State, preferential
protection in a matter relating to the citizeJ?,ship of India. This is
F
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 are concerned, the issue~ indi~ated
in the present affidavit of the State under reply, are not relevant. None
G of the submissions made in the connected affidavit, referred to above
filed by the Union oflndia in connected Writ Petition No. 7/2001, are
controverted by the State of Assam in 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."
H
SARBANANDA SONOWAL v. U.0.1. [G.P. MATHUR, J.] 491

In paragraph 2 it is averred that though the administrative power have A
been delegated to the Government of Assam to implement the !MDT Act but
the entire expenditure incurred is being reimbursed by the Central Government
to the Government of Assam. It is further averred that since the enforcement
of the IMDT Act only 1494 illegal migrants had been deported from Assam
upto 30th June, 2001. In contrast 489046 number of Bangladeshi nationals had B
been actually deported under the Foreigners Act, 1946 from the State of West
Bengal between 1983 and November 1998. The IMDT Act had failed to fulfil
the objects for which it was enacted which is apparent from the poor results
and it places Assam in a different position from rest of the country where the
Foreigners Act, 1946 is applicable. The provisions of the IMDT Act and the
Rules made thereunder are highly burdensome for the public, as a result C
whereof no worthwhile cooperation/response is received from the public in

- the detection and deportation of illegal migrants. The Act failed to achieve
its object rather it generated its side effects. It is also averred that there is
no justification in the application of the IMDT Act to the State of Assam
when the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 are quite effective for
detection and deportation of illegal migrants (foreigners) which is applicable D
to the rest of the country. Lastly, it is prayed that the constitutional validity
of the IMDT Act may be examined in the light and background of the above
facts.

9; The petitioner has also filed a reply to the additional affidavit filed E
on behalf of the State of Assam, where besides 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 the General Secretaries to the Seventh
·--{
General Conference of the North-Eastern Congress (I) Co-Ordination Committee
dated 3rd July, 1992 wherein it was recorded as under :- F
"20.1 There are infiltrations though it is a difficult task to examine the
precise number.

20.2 The infiltrations are not only by minorities .of Bangladesh but
alsn fro1n th~',... rity Muslims. In absolute terms, the number of G
1
: ·. 'iri is likely to be much larger than that

2(U An 1ucv1u:£i1.,,:1 oLlhJOrl IS given to the phenomenon by the Islamic
Fundamentalists creating the vision of a larger country comprising
Bangladesh ang the entire North East where its economic problems H
492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. l S.C.R.

A will be solved and security ensured.

20.4 There is a direct correlation between the rise of fundamentalism
and increase in influx."

It is further averred in paragraphs 9 and 10 of this affidavit that the Law
B Commission of India in its 175th Report on the Foreigners (Amendment) Bill,
2000 (submitted in September 2000) has also dealt with this issue. While
noting that entry of illegal migrants and other undesirable aliens into India
has posed a grave threat to our democracy and the security of India, especially
for the eastern part of the country and Jammu and Kashmir, the Law
Commission has observed that influx of migrants from Bangladesh has remained
C unabated and has acquired frightening proportions. The Law Commission has
also referred to the Report of the Governor of Assam dated 8th November,
1998 submitted to the President of India highlighting dangerous dimensions
of the unprecedented migration of Bangladeshis to Assam and the security
threats and strategic and economic consequences thereof. The Law
Commission has proposed a draft Foreigners (Amendment) Bill, governing
D foreigners in India and the prevailing discriminatory position by the application
of IMDT Act only to the State of Assam has ,been sought to be done away
with by providing in Section 8(1) of the draft Bill for repeal of the said Act
and dissolution of the Tribunals constituted thereunder.

E 10. The Union of India has filed another affidavit on 24th November,
2004 wherein it is averred that though in the earlier affidavit a prayer was
made to examine the constitutional validity of the IMDT Act, but on
-
,

reconsideration the Central Government has taken a decision to retain the
IMDT Act in present form in its application to the State of Assam. It is
averred that allegations wei;e made by various organizations that a large
F number of genuine Indian citizens were deported under the Foreigners Act,
1946 and, therefore, the IMDT Act was enforced whose purpose is to protect
the genuine Indian citizens and it introduced an element of judicial scrutiny
to determine the citizenship of a person. It is further averred that upto 31st
March, 2004, the number of complaints received under the !MDT Act were
G 401598 wherein inquiries were completed in 397835 cases and 376341 inquiries
were referred to the Screening Committee. Out of these 87222 cases were
referred to Tribunals for opinion and 12180 persons were declared as illegal
migrants. This, according to the affidavit, shows that but for the element of
judicial scrutiny thousands of Indians would have been deported. It is further
averred that as on 31st March, 2004, 519391 number of inquiries were completed
H by the Tribunals under the Foreigners Act to detect those foreigners who
SARBANANDA SONOWAL v. U.0.1. [G.P. MATHUR, J.] 493
came into Assam during the period !st January, 1966 to 24th March, 1971 and A
29189 persons were declared as foreigners ~nd their names were deleted from
the electoral rolls. This shows that the results obtained under the IMDT Act
and the Foreigners Act were more or less comparable. Besides above, the
details of the fencing work and construction of roads done at the border have
also been given.
B
11. In I.A. No.6 of2004, the copy of the memorandum submitted before
the Parliamentary Standing Committee of Home Affairs on "The Illegal Migrants
Laws (Replacing & Amending) Bill, 2003" on behalf of Government of Assam
has been filed, which contains the figures regarding inquiries conducted upto
31st August, 2003 and the same is as under :- C
l. Total number of enquiries initiated 386249

2. Total number of enquiries completed 379521

3. Total number of enquiries referred to Screening 362592
Committee D

4. Total number of enquiries made by the Screening 359733
Committee

5. Total number of enquiries referred to the IM(DT)s 76228
E
6. Total number of enquiries disposed of by the IM(DT)s 21169

7. Total number of persons declared as illegal migrants 11636

8. Total number of illegal migrants physically expelled 1517

9. Total number of illegal migrants to whom expulsion 6159 F
orders served

10. Total number of enquiries pending with the Screening 2859
Committee

11. Total number of cases pending with the Tribunals 55059 G
A copy of the report dated 8th November, 1998 sent by Governor of
Assam, Lt. Gen. S.K. Sinha (Retired), former Deputy Chief of Army Staff, has
also been filed along with this application. The report is a long and
comprehensive one which was prepared after thorough inspection of border
areas and districts, discussion with Indian Ambassador in Bangladesh and H
494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A talks with political leaders. Some portions of the report are being reproduced
below:-

"I . The unabated influx of illegal migrants from Bangladesh into Assam
and the consequent perceptible change in the demographic pattern of
the State has been a matter of grave concern. It threatens to reduce
B the Assamese people to a minority in their own State, as happened
in Tripura and Sikkim.

2. Illegal migration into Assam was the core issue behind the Assam
student movement. It was also the prime contributory factor behind
the outbreak of insurgency in the State. Yet we have not made much
C tangible progress in dealing with this all important issue.

3. There is a tendency to view illegal migration into Assam as a
regional matter affecting only the people of Assam. It's more dangerous
dimensions of greatly undermining our national security, is ignored.
The long cherished design of Greater East Pakistan/Bangladesh, making
D in-roads into strategic land link of Assam with the rest of the country,
can lead to severing the entire land mass of the North-East, with all
its rich resources from the rest of the country. They will have
disastrous strategic and economic consequences.·

MIGRATION INTO ASSAM
E HJSTOJUCALBACKGROUND
7. Failure to get Assam included in East Pakistan in 1947 remained a
source of abiding resentment in that country. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in
his book "Myths of Independence" wrote "It would be wrong that ...
Kashmir is the only dispute that divides India and Pakistan, though
F
undoubtedly the most significant. One at least is nearly as important
as the Kashmir dispute, that of Assam and some districts of India
adjacent to East Pakistan. To these Pakistan has very good claims".
Even a pro-India leader like Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in his book
"Eastern Pakistan; its population & economics" observed, "Because
G Eastern Pakistan must have sufficient land for its expansion and
because Assam has abundant forests and mineral resources, coal,
petroleum ,etc., Eastern Pakistan must include Assam to be financially
and economically strong.

H
SARBANANDA SONOWAL v. U.O.l. [G.P. MATHUR, J.] 495
CONTRIBUTORY FACTORS A
10. Besides the above considerations, there are other contributory
factors facilitating infiltration from Bangladesh. Ethnic, linguistic and
religious commonality between the illegal migrants and many people
on our side of the border enables them to find shelter. It makes their
detection difficult. Some political parties have been encouraging and B
even helping illegal migration with a view to building vote banks.
These immigrants are hardworking and are prepared to work as cheap
l_abour and domestic help for lower remuneration than the local people.
This makes them acceptable. Moreover, with corruption being all
pervasive, corrupt officials are bribed to provide help. Recently, a C
racket has been busted in Lakhimpur. Four individuals were found to
have been providing forged citizenship certificates and other
documents to illegal migrants for the last 14 years.

ILLEGAL MIGRANTS

15 ....................................... Mr. Mulan described this as invasion using D
military terminology which in present geostrategic context, underscores
the strategic aspect of the problem. It is unfortunate that to this day,
after half a century of independence,· we have chosen to remain
virtually oblivious to the grave danger to our national security arising
from this unabated influx of illegal migrants. Third, the prophecy that E
except the Sibsagar district, the Assamese people will not find
themselves at home in Assam, is well on its way to becoming true as
reflected by the present demographic pattern of Assam.

16. Mr. Inderjit Gu(?ta, the then Home Minister of India stated in the
Parliament on May 6, 1997 that there were 10 million illegal migrants F
residing in India. Quoting Home Ministry/Intelligence Bureau sources,
the August 10, 1998 issue of India Today has given the breakdown
of these illegal migrants by States :-

West Bengal 5.4 million
G
Assam 4 million

Tripura 0.8 million

Bihar 0.5 million
Maharashtra 0.5 million H
496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A Rajasthan - 0.5 million

Delhi - 0.3 million Making a

total of - 10.83 millions

Community wise growth
B
Assam India

Hindus Muslims Hindus Muslims

(l) 1951-1961 33.71 38.35 20.29 25.61

c (2) 1961-1971 37.17 30.99 23.72 30.85

(3) 1971-1991 41.89 77.42 48.38 55.04

EXPLANATORY NOTE

D ........................ In the case of Muslims the Assam growth rate was
much higher than the All India rate. This suggests continued large
scale Muslim illegal migration into Assam.

(d) Muslim population in Assam has shown a rise of 77.42 per cent
in 1991 from what it was in 1971. Hindu population has risen by
E nearly 41.89 per cent in this period.
(e) Muslim population in Assam has risen from 24.68 per cent in 1951
to 28.42 per cent in 1991. As per 1991 census four districts
(Dhubri, Goalpara, Barpeta and Hailakandi) have become Muslim
majority districts. Two more districts (Nagaon and Karimganj)
should have become so by 1998 and one district Morigaon is fast
F approaching this position.

20. The growth of Muslim population has been emphasized in the
previous paragraph to indicate the extent of illegal migration from
Bangladesh to Assam because as stated earlier, the illegal migrants
coming into India after 1971 have been almost exclusively Muslims.
G
21. Pakistan's ISi has been active in Bangladesh supporting militant
movement in Assam. Muslim militant organization have mushroomed
in Assam and there are reports of somf! 50 Assamese Muslim youths
having gone for training to Afghanistan and Kashmir.

H
SARBANANDA SONOWAL v. U.O.l. [G.P. MATHUR, J.] 497
CONSEQUENCES A
22. The dangerous consequences of large scale illegal migration from
Bangladesh, both for the peopie of Assam and more for the Nation
as a whole, need to be emphatically stressed. No misconceived and
mistaken notions of secularism should be allowed to come in the way
of doing sp .. B
23. 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. Their cultural survival will be in jeopardy,
their political control will be a weakened and their employment
opportunities will be undetermined. C
24. The silent and invidious demographic invasion of Assam may
result in the loss of the geostrategically vital districts of lower Assam.
The influx of these 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 D
growth of international Islamic fundamentalism may provide for 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 oflndia and the rich natural resources of that E
.region will be lost to the Nation."

12. Since extensive reference has been made in the affidavits to the
Assam Accord, it is necessary to notice the main provisions thereof. It is a
Memorandum of Settlement which was signed on 15th August, 1985 by the
President and General Secretary of All Assam Students' Union and Convenor F
of All Assam Gana Parishad on the one hand and Home Secretary, Government
of India and the Chief Secretary, Government of Assam on the other, in the
presence of Shri Rajiv Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India. The main
clauses of the settlement which have a bearing on the case are being
reproduced below :-
G
~'MEMORANDUM OF SEITLEMENT

Government have all along been most anxious to find a satisfactory
solution to the problem of foreigners in Assam. The All Assam Student
Union (AASU) and the All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad (AAGSP)
H
498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A have also expressed their keenness to finq 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 apprehensions regarding the continuing
influx of foreign nationals into Assam and the fear about adverse
B effects upon the political, social cultural and economic life of the
State.

3. Being fully alive to the genuine apprehensions of the people of
Assam, the then Prime Minister initiated the dialogue with the
AASU/AAGSP. Subsequently, talks were held at the Prime
C Minister's and Home Minister's levels during the period 1980-83.
Several rounds of informal talks were held during 1984. Formal
discussions were resumed in March, 1985.

4. Keeping all aspects of the problem including constitutional and
legal provisions, international agreements, national commitments
D and humanitarian considerations, it has been decided to proceed
as follows: -

Foreigners Issue

5.1. For purposes of detection and deletion of foreigners, 1.1.1966
shall be the base date and year.
E
5.2. 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.
)
5.3. Foreigners who came to Assam after l. l.1966 (inclusive) and up
F to 24th March 1971 shall be detected in accordance with the
provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners
(Tribunals) Order 1964.
5.4. Names of foreigners so detected will be deleted from the electoral
rolls in force. Such persons will be required to register themselves
G before the Registration Office of the respective districts in
~.
accordance with the provisions of the Registration of Foreigners
Act, 1939 and the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1939,

5.5. For this purpose, Govt. of India will undertake suitable
strengthening of the governmental machinery.
H 5.6. On the expiry of a period of ten years following the date of

I
1.
SARBANANDA SONOWAL v. U.0.1. [G.P. MATHUR, J.] 499

detection, the names of all such persons which have been deleted A
from the electoral rolls shall be restored.
5.7. All persons who were expelled earlier, but have since re-entered
illegally into Assam, shall be expelled.
5.8. Foreigners who came to Assam on or after March 25, 1971 shall
continue to be detected, deleted and expelled in accordance with B
law. Immediate and practical steps shall be taken to expel such
foreigners.
5.9. The Government will give due consideration to certain difficulties
expressed by the AASU/AAGSP regarding the implementation of
the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983." C
Subsequent thereto the Citizenship Act, 1955 was amended and Section 6-A
_was iritroduced w.e.f. 7.12.1985. The relevant provisions of Section 6-A are
-- bei.ng reproduced below: -

"6(A) Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the D
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 Citizenship
(Amendment) Act, 1985;
(b) "detected to be a foreigner" means detected to be a foreigner in E
accordance with the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (31
of 1946) and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Orders, 1964 by a Tribunal
constituted under the said Order;
(c) "specified territory" means the territories included in Bangladesh F
immediately before the commencement of the Citizenship
(Amendment) Act, 1985;
(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;
G
(e) a person shall be deemed to have been detected to 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-section (6) and (7), all persons of H
500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A Indian origin who came before the I st 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) ~nd 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
B of January, 1966.

(3) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (6) and (7), every
person of Indian origin who
(a) came to Assam on or after the 1st day ofJanuary, 1966 but before
C the 25th day of March, 1971 from the specified territory; and
(b) has, since the date of his entry into Assam, been ordinarily
re.sident in Assam; and
(c) has been detected to be a foreigner;

D shall register himself in accordance with the rules made by the Central
Government in this behalf under ~ection 18 with such authority
(hereafter 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.
E
.. ·Explanation-In the. case· of every person· seeking registration
under this sub~s~ction, the opinion of the Tribi.lrtal constituted under
the Fornigners (Trfounals) O~der, 1964 holdin1g such ~erson to be a
foreigner, shall be deemed to be. sufficient pr~of of the requirement
under clause © of this sub-section. and ·if any question arises as to
F whether such person complies with any other.requirement under this
Sub-section, the registering authority shall:

(i) if such opinion contains a finding with respect to such other
requirement, decide the question in confonnity with such finding:
G (ii) if such opinion does not contain a finding with respect to such
other requirement, refer the question to a Tribunal constituted
under the said Order having jurisdiction in 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.
H
SARBANANDA SONOWAL v. U.O.I. [G.P. MATHUR, J.] 501

(4) A person registered under sub-section (3) shall have, as from the A
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
connected therewith), but shall not be entitled to have. his name B
included in any electoral roll for any Assembly or Parliamentary
constituency at any time before the expiry of the said period of ten •·
years.
--.,,·· .
(5) A persoll_ registered under sub-section (3) shall be deemed to be
a citizen of India for aH purposes as from the date of expiry of a period C
of ten years from the date on which he has been detected to be a
foreigner.

(6) ................................. (Omitted as not relevant).

(7) Nothing in sub~sections (2) to (6) shall_ apply in relation to any
person D
(a) · who, immediately before the commencement of the Citizenship
(Amendment) Act, 1985, for year is a citizen of India;
(b) who was expelled from India before the commencement of the
Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985, under the Foreigners Act, E
1946 (31 ?f 1946).

(8) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this section, the provisions
of this section shall have effect not withstanding anything contained
in any other law for the time being in force.''

13. In this writ petition we are basic!llly concerned-with the constitutional F
validity of the IMDT Act" which .has been. made applicable only to the State
of Assam and that too fo(detection and deportation of illegal migrants; who
·have entered India on 25thMarch, 1971 or1hereafter. The IMDT Act has not
.;-:-- -. ' · be~n enforced in the ~es!N'the country. The.·election manifesto of a political
party has· no relevance and can.not be. taken into consideration for judging G
. the constitutional validity of any enactment, whether made by State or by
_Centre,- ~~-it
.. .
is· a purely_
.
leg~l._iss~e··and
.
lies.
·-
.,
within the _domain· of judiciary.
-~

,._:. ,.
.· .... '·"·
.-14. Before adverting-to the provisions of the IMDT Act, it i~ necessary
.·
t~ have a brief look at the ena.ctments made for dealing with foreigners. The
··':-

first enactment governing the foreigners was.the Foreigners Act, l864, which H
502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A provided for the· expulsion of foreigners and their apprehension, detention
pending removal and for a ban on their entry into India after removal. The
situation created by the Second World War led to promulgation of Foreigners
Ordinance in 1939 which was replaced by Foreigners Act, 1940. Section 7 of
this Act read as under :-

B "Burden of proof -If any question arises with reference to this Act
or any order made or direction given thereunder, whether any person
is or is not a foreigner or is or is not a foreigner of a particular class
or description, the onus of proving that such person is not a foreigner
or is not a foreigner of such particular class or description, as the case
c may be, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, lie upon such person."

The legislature then enacted the Foreigners Act, 1946 which repealed
the 1940 Act. Section 2(a) of this Act defines a "foreigner" and it means a
p~rson who is not a citizen of India. Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 lays down
D that the Central Government may by order make provision, either generally or
_with respect to all foreigners or with respect to any particular foreigner or any
prescribed class or description of foreigner, for prohibiting, regulating or
restricting the entry of foreigners into India or, their departure therefrom or
their presence or continued presence therein. Without prejudice to the
generality of the powers conferred by sub-section (1), sub-section (2) c~nfers
E power to make wide ranging orders concerning a foreigner which have been
numerated in eta.uses (a) to· (g), which include that a foreigner shall not remain
in India or in any prescribed area therein, or if he has been required by an
order under this Section riot to remain in India, meet from· any resources at
his disposal the cost of his removal from India or remain in such area as may
F be prescribed and.shat~ comply with such condition.as may Qe specified or
shall be arrested cir detained or confined. Sub-section (3) provides that any
authority prescribed in this behalf may with respect to any particular foreigner
make orders under clause (c) or clause (f) of sub-section (2). Section 4 confers
power for directing a foreigner to be detained or confined in such place and
manner as the Central Government by order determine. Section 4(3) directs
G that no person shall knowingly assist an internee to escape from custody or
harbour an escaped internee or to give any assistance to such a foreigner.
Section 5 places restriction upon a foreigner to change his name while in
India. Section 6 casts an obligation on master of any vessel and pilot of any
aircraft landing or embarking at any place in India to give particulars with
H respect to any passenger or members of any crew who are foreigners. Section
SARBANANDA SONOWAL v. U.O.l. [G.P. MATHUR, J.] 503
7 casts a similar obligation on hotel keepers in respect of foreigners A
accommodated therein. Section 12 confers power upon any authority who has
been conferred ·power to make or give any direction under the Act to further
delegate to any subordinate authority to exercise such power on its behalf.
Section 14 has been amended by Act No. 16 of 2004 and now maximum
punishment under the said section is five years and also fine. Section 14A B
and 14B, which have been add0d by the aforesaid amendment, provide for
punishment with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than two
years but may extend to eight years. Section l 4C provides for some punishment
for abetment' of offences under Section l 4A or l 4B. Section 9 of this Act is
important and it reads as under :-

"9. Burden of proof-If in any case not falling under section 8 any
c
question arises with reference to this Act or any order made or
direction given thereunder, whether any person is or is not a foreigner
or is or is not a foreigner of a particular class or description the onus
of proving that such person is not a foreigner or is not a foreigner
of such particular class or description, as the case may be, shall, D
notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
(1 of 1872), lie upon such person."

This Act confers wide ranging powers to deal with all foreigners or with
respect to any particular foreigner or any prescribed class or description of
foreigner for prohibiting, regulating or restricting their or his entry into India E
or their presence or continued presence including his arrest, detention and
confinement. The most important ,provision is Section 9 which casts the
burden of proving that a person is not a foreigner or is not a foreigner of such
particular class or description, as the case may be, shall lie upon such person.
Therefore, where an order made under the Foreigners Act is challenged and F
a question arises whether the person against whom the order has been made
is a foreigner or not, the burden of proving that he is not a foreigner is upon
such a person. In Union of India v. Ghaus Mohammed, AIR (1961) SC 1526,
the Chief Commissioner of Delhi served an order on Ghaus Mohammad to
leave India within three days as he was a Pakistani national. He challenged
the order before the High Court which set aside the order by observing that G
there must be prima facie material on the basis of which the authority can
proceed to pass an order under Section 3(2)(c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
In appeal the Constitution Bench reversed the judgment of the High Court
holding that onus of showing that he is not a foreigner was upon the
respondent.
H
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A 15. The Central Government has made the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order,
1964 in exercise of pow..ers conferred by Section 3 of the Foreigners Act.
Clause 2(1} oflhis Orde~p~ovides that the Central Government may by order
refer the question as to whether a person is or is not a foreigner within .the
meaning of Foreigners Act, 1946, to a Tribunal to be constituted for the
B purpose, for its opinion. Clause 3(1) provides that the Tribunal shall serve on
a
the person to whom the question relates, copy of the main grounds on
which he is alleged to be a foreigner and give him a reasonable opportunity
·or making a representation and producing evidence in support of his ca~e and
· after cohsidering such evidence ~s may be produced and after hearing sue~.
persons as may deserve to be heard; the Tribunal.shall submit its opinion tb ·•
C the officer or authority specified in this behalf in the order ofreferenc~. Clause
3(1-A) provides that th~ Tribunal shall, before 'ghdng its ~pinioh :Oh. :th~
question referred to in sub-paragraph (l-A). of paragraph 2, give the person··
in respect of whom the opinion is sought, a reasonable opportunity to reprnserit
his case. Clause 4 provides that the Tribunal shall have the powers of.a Civil
Court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure in res'pect 'or ·
D summoning and ~nforcing the attendance of any p~rson and examining hiin
on oath, requiring the discovery and production of any document and issuing
commissions for the examination of any witness.

16. It needs to be emphasized that the general rule in the leading
E democracies of the world is that where a person claims to be a citizen of a
particular country, the burden is upon him to prove that he is a c itizeri of that·
country. In United Kingdom, the relevant. provision is contained in the
Immigration Act, 1971 and sub-Section (1), (8) and (9) of Section 3 thereof
l
read as under :

F "3. General provisions for regulation and control. (I) Except as
otherwise provided by or under this Act, where a person is not a
British citizen

(a) he shall not enter the United Kingdom unless given leave to do
so in accordance with the provisions of, or made under this Act;
_G •
(b) he may be given leave to enter the United Kingdom (or when
already there, leave to remain in the United Kingdom) either for·
a limited or for an indefinite period; '
{c) '
if he is given a limited· teave to_ enter or remain in the United
Kingdum, it may be given subject to· condition:s restrict.ing his
H employment or occupation in the United Kingdom, or· re·q1:1i'ring . ·
SARBANANDA SONOWAL v. U,D.L (G.P. iv1ATHUR, J.] 505
him to register with the police, or both. A
xxx xxx
(8) When any question arises under this Act whether or not a person
is a British citizen, or is entitled to any exemption under this Act, it
shall lie on the persori asserting it to prove that he is.
B
(9) A person seeking to enter the United Kingdom and claiming to
· :have the right of abode there shall prove that he has that right by
means of either

(a).· a United Kingdom passport describing him as a British citizen of
the Uni}ed Kingdom and Co.Jonies having the right of abode in C
the United Kingdom; or

(b) a certificate of entitlement."

So111ewhat similar provision is contained in· Immigration and Nationality
Act ofUSA and Section 291 places the burden of proof upon the person D
concerned in .any removal proceeding. Section 318 provides that no person
shall be naruralized unless he has been lawfully admittecl to the United States
for permanent residence in accordance with all. applicable provisions of the
Act and the burden of proof shall be upon such person to show that he
entered the United States lawfully. The Immigration and Refugee Protection
Act, 2001 of Canada contains a provision of placing the burden upon the E
concerned person to establish his right to have a permanent residence in the
said country. Section 188 of the Migration Act, 1958 of Australia provides
that an officer may require a person whom the officer knows or suspects is
··a non-citizen to (a) show the officer evidence of being a lawful non-citizen;
or (b) show the officer evidence of the person's identity.
F
17. There is good and sound reason for placing the burden of proof
upon the person concerned who asserts to be a citi~en of a particular country.
In order to establish one's citizenship, normally he may be required to give
evidence of(i) his date of birth (ii) place of birth (iii) name of his parents (iv)
their place of birth and citizenship. Some times the place of birth of his grand .G
parents may also be relevant like. under Section 6-A(I )(d) of the· Citize11ship
Act. All these facts would necessarily be. within the personal.knowledge of
the person concerned and not of the authorities ofthe State. After he has
given evidence on these points, the State authorities can verify the facts and
can then lead evidence in rebuttal, if necessary. lfthe State authorities dispute
.· the claim of citizenship by a person and assert that he is a foreigner, it will· H
506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A not only be difficult but almost impossible for them to first lead evidence on
the aforesaid points. This is in accordance with the underlying policy of
Section I 06 of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially
within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon
him.

B 18. Though in a criminal case the general rule is that the burden of proof
is on the prosecution but if any fact is especially within the knowledge of the
accused, he has to lead evidence to prove the said fact. In Shambhu Nath
Mehra v. The State of Ajmer, AIR (1956) SC 404 it was held as follows:

"Section 106 is an exception to S. I 0 I. The 'latter with its illustration
c (a) lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of
proof is on the prosecution and S. 106 is certainly not intended to
relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain
exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate
disproportionately difficult, for the prosecution to establish facts which
D are "especially" within the knowledge of the accused and which he
could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. The word "especially"
stresses that. It means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally
within his knowledge."

In Collector of Customs, Madras v. D. Bhoormull, AIR (1974) SC 859,
E proceedings were initiated under Section 167(8)(c) of the Customs Act for
confiscation of contraband or smuggled goods and it was observed:

" .............. Since it is exceedingly difficult, if not absolutely impossible
for the prosecution to prove facts which are especially· within the
knowledge of the accused, it is not obliged to prove them as part of
F its primary burden."
(Paragraph 3 I)

" ............... On the principle underlying S. 106 Evidence Act, the burden
to establish those facts is cast on the person concerned; and if he
fails to establish or explain those facts, an adverse inference of facts
G may arise against him, which coupled with the presumptive evidence
adduced by the prosecution or the Department would rebut the initial
presumption of innocence in favour of that person, and in the result
prove him guilty.

In state of West Bengal v. Meer Mohd. Umar, [2000] 8 SCC 382, it was
H
SARBANANDA SONOWAL v. U.O.I. [G.P. MATHUR, J.] 507
held that the legislature engrafted special rule in Section 106 of the Evidence A
Act to meet certain exceptional cases in which not only it would be impossible
but disproportionately difficult for the prosecution to establish such facts
which are specially and exceptionally within the exclusive knowledge of the
accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. This
principle was reiterated in Sanjai@ Kaka v. State (NCT of Delhi), [2001] 3 B
SCC 190 and Ezhil v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR (2002) SC 2017.

In R. v. Oliver, ( 1943) All ER 800, the accused was charged with having
sold sugar as a whole-sale seller without the necessary licence. It was held
that whether the accused had a licence was a fact peculiarly within his own
knowledge and proof of the fact that he had a licence lay upon him. It was C
further held that in the circumstances of the case the prosecution was under
no necessity to give prima facie evidence of non-existence of a licence. In
this case reference is made to some earlier decisions and it will be useful to
notice the same. In R. v. Turner, (1916) 5 M & S 206: 14 Digest 430, the learned
Judge observed as follows:
D
"I have always understood it to be a general rule, that, if a negative
averment be made by one party, which is peculiarly within the
knowledge of the other, the party within whose knowledge it lies and
who asserts the affirmative, is to prove it, and not he who avers the
negative."
E
In Williams v. Russel, (1993) 149 LT 190, the learned Judge held as under:

"On the principle laid down in R. v. Turner and numerous Ors., cases
where it is an offence to do an act without lawful authority, the person
who sets up the lawful authority must prove it and the prosecution
need not prove the absence of lawful authority. I think the onus of F
the negative averment in this case was on the accused to prove the
possession of the policy required by the statute:"

19. Section 9 of the Foreigners Act regarding burden of proof is basically
on the same lines as the corresponding provision is in U.K. and some other
Western nations and is based upon sound legal principle that the facts which G
are peculiarly within the knowledge of a person should prove it and not the
party who avers the negative.

20. Clause (b) of sub-Section 6-A(l) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 defines
"detected to be a foreigner" and it means detected to be a foreigner in H
. ..
508 SUPREMECOURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. I S.C:R.

A accordance with the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners
(Tribunals) Order 1964 by a Tribunal constituted under the said Order. Similarly,
the explanation appended to Section 6-A(2) also refers to the "opinion of the
Tribunal constituted under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 holding
such person to be a foreigner". These provisions rpandate the establishment
B and functioning of a Tribunal constituted under the Foreigners (Tribunals)
Order, 1964 in the State of Assam. The learned Additional Solicitor General
and Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel for the State of Assam have
made a statement that such Tribunals are actually functioning in the State of
Assam.

C 21. The provisions of the IMDT Act may now ~e ex~mined. The Statement
of Objects and Reasons of the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) - -·
Act, 1983, reads as under :-

"Statement of Objects and Reasons, - The i11fltix of foreigners who
illegally migrated into India across the borders of the sensitive eastern
D and north-eastern regions of the country and remained in the country
poses a threat to the integrity and security of the said regions. A
substantial number of such foreigners who migrated into India after
the 25th day of March, 1971, have, by taking advantage of the
. circumstances of such migration and their e~hnic simiiarities and other
connections with the people of India, illegally remained in India without
having in their possession lawful authority.so to do. The continuance
of these persons in India has given rise to serious problems. The
clandestine manner in which these persons have been trying to pass
off as citizens of India has rendered their detection difficult. After
taking into account the need for their speedy detection, the need for
F protectio_n of genuine citizens of India and the interests of the general
p~blic, the Pre.sident promulgated, on the 15th ·October, 1983, the
II.leg~! Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Ordinance, -1983, to
provide for the establishment of Tribunals."
_: _;

The Preamble of the Act which finally ~a.me i~to fqrce on 25th December,·
G 1983 reads as under :-

"An Act to pl'bvide for the establishment of Tribunals for the
detefmination, in a fair manner,. ofthe questlbiJ whether a person is ·
an illegal migrant to enable the Cent;a!Government t~ expel ille"i_ql_,
migrants jj-o~ India and formatters connectedjherel1/ith orincide.ntal
H thereto. ,;- '·
SARBANANDA SONOWALv. U.0.1 . [G.P. MATHUR, J.) 509

WHEREAS a good number of the foreigners who migrated into A
India across the borders of the eastern and north-eastern regions of
the country on and after the 25th day of March, 1971, have, by taking
. advantage of the circumstances of such migration and their ethnic
similarities and other connections with the people of India and without
having in their possession any lawful authority so to do, illegally B
remained in India;

AND WHEREAS the continuance of such foreigners in India is
detrimental to the interests of the public of India;

AND WHEREAS on account of the number of such foreigners
and the manner in which such foreigners have clandestinely been C
trying to pass off as citizens of India and all other relevant
circumstances, it is necessary for the protection of the citizens of
India to make special provisions for the detection of such foreigners
in Assam and also in any other part of India in which such foreigners
·may be found to have re.mained illegally;"
D
Some pf the provisions of the Act . which are relevant are being
reproduced below :-

3. Definitions and construction of references - (1) In this Act, unless
the context requires
E
(a) · xxx

(b) "foreigner" has the same meaning as in the Foreigners Act, 1946;
(c) "illegal migrant".means a person inrespect of whom each of the
following conditions is satisfied, namely:-
F
(i) he has entered into India on or after the 25th day of March,
1971;

(ii) he is a foreigner;

(iii) he has entered into India without being in possession of a G
valid passport or other travel document or any other lawful
authority in that behalf;

4. Overriding effect of the Act. -{I) The provisions of this Act or of
any rule or order made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding
a·nything contained in the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 or the H
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A Foreigners Act, 1946 or the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act,
1950 or the Passport Act, 1967 or any rule or order made under any
of the said Acts and in force for the time being.

(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions
of sub-section (I), nothing in the proviso to section 2 of the Immigrants
B (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 shall apply to or in relation to an
illegal migrant as defined in clause (c) of sub-section (l) of section 3.

8. References or applications to Tribunals - (1) If any question arises
as to whether any person is or is not an illegal migrant, the Central
Government may, whether such question has arisen on a representation
c made by such person against any order under the Foreigners Act,
1946_requiring him not to remain in India or to any other effect or has
arisen in any other manner whatsoever, refer such question to a
Tribunal for decision.

(2) Any person may make an application to the Tribunal, for· its
D decision, as to whether the person whose name and other particulars
are given in the application, is or is not an illegal migrant :

Provided that no such application shall be entertained by the
Tribunal unless the person in relation to whom the application is made
is found, or resides, within the jurisdiction of the same police station
E where the applicant has his place of residence.

(3) Every application made under sub-section (2) shall be made in
such form and in such manner as may be prescribed and sh_all be
accompanied by affidavits sworn by not less than two persons residing
within the jurisdiction of the same police station in which the person
F referred to in the application is found, or residing, corroborating the
averments made in the application, and shall also be accompanied by
such fee, being not less than (ten) and not more than one hundred,
rupees, as may be prescribed.

(4) Every reference under sub-section (l) shall be made to the
G Tribunal within the territorial limits of whose jurisdiction the place of
residence of the person name in such reference is, at the time of
making such reference, situated :

Provided that where such person has no place of residence, the " ··
reference shall be made to the Tribunal within the territorial limits of ·
H
SARBANANDA SONOWAL v. U.O.l. [G.P. MATHUR, J.] 511
whose jurisdiction such person is, at the time of making such reference, A
found.

(5) Every application under sub-section (2) shall be made to the
Tribunal within the territorial limits of whose jurisdiction the person
named in such application is found or, as the case may be, has his
place of residence, at the time of making such application. B
8-A. Application to the Central Government for reference--( I) Any
person may make an application to the Central Government, for decision
by a Tribunal, as to whether the person whose name and other
particulars are given in the application, is or is not an illegal migrant,
and where any such application is received by the Central Government, c
it may, on the basis of any information in its possession or after
making such inquiry as it deems fit, reject the application on the
ground that the application is frivolous or vexatious or it does not
comply with the requirements of this section or refer such application
to a Tribunal for decision.
D
(2) Every application made under sub-section (1) shall be made in
such fonn and in ~uch manner as may be prescribed and shall be
accompanied by a declaration by another person residing within the
jurisdiction of the same revenue sub-division in which the applicant
resides in such form as may be prescribed to the effect that the E
particulars mentioned in the applicatiop are true to his knowledge,
infonnation and belief:

Provided that no person shall make more than ten such applications
or more than ten such declarations.

(3) Every reference under sub-section (1) shall be made to the F
Tribunal within the territorial limits of whose jurisdiction the place of
residence of the person named in such reference is, at the time of
making such reference, situated : .

Provided that where such person has no place of residence, the
reference shall be made to the Tribunal within the territorial limits of G
whose jurisdiction such person is, at the time of making such reference,
found.

10. Procedure with respect to references under sub-section (1) of
section 8 On receipt of a reference under sub-section (1) of section H
512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A 8 or sub-section (1) of section 8-A the Tribunal shall serve on the
person named in such reference, a notice, accompanied by a copy of
such reference, caliing upon him to make, within a period of thirty
days from the date of receipt of such notice; stic-h representation -\.Vith
regard to the averments made in the reference, and to produce such ' '':
l
evidence as he may think fit in support of his defence :
B
Provided that if the Tribunal is satisfied that the person aforesaid
was prevented by sufficient cause from making his representation and
from producing evidence in support of his defence within the said
period of thirty days, it may permit him to make his representation and
to produce evidence in support of his defence, within such further
c period, not exceeding thirty days, as it may, by order, specify.

11. Procedure with respect to applications under sub-section (2) of
~
section 8.-0n receipt of an application under sub-section (2) of
section 8, the Tribunal shall issue a notice, accompanied by a copy
of the application, to the prescribed authority calling upon it to furnish,
D
after making ~uch inquiry as that authority may deem fit, a report to
the Tribunal with _regard to the averments made in the application.

(2) If, on a consideration of the report made by the prescribed
authority, the Tribunal is satisfied that-
E . (a) the person name.d in the application is not an illegal migrant
or that the applicant is frivolous or vexatious, or has not been made
in good faith, the Tribunal shall, after giving the applicant an
opportunity to be heard, reject the application ·;

(b) there are reasonable ~rounds to believe that the person named
F in the application is an illegal migrant, the Tribunal shall issue a notice
accompanied by a copy of the application, to the person named in the l'
application, calling upon him to make, within thirty days from the date .,~
I
of receipt of the notice, such representation with regard to the averments
made in the application and to produce such evidence as he may think
G fit in support of his defence ;

Provided that if the Tribunal is satisfied that the person aforesaid .
..;,.
~

was prevented by sufficient cause from making his representation and
from producing evidence in support of his defence within the said
~
period of thirty days, it may permit him to make his representation and }

H to produce evidence in support of his defence, within such further
SARBANANDA SONOWAL v. U.0.1. (G.P. MATHUR, J.] 513
period, not exceeding thirty days, as it may, by order, specify. A
12. Determination of the question as to whether a person is an illegal
migrant- (1) The Tribunal to which a reference has been made under
section 8 or section 8-A, or to which an application has been made
under section 8, shall after taking such evidence as may be adduced
before it and after making such inquiry as it may think fit and after B
hearing such persons as it may deem appropriate, by order, decide the
question as to whether the person named in such reference or
application, as the case may be, is or is not an illegal migrant :

Provided that where for the determination of such question in any
case the decision on any issue renders any decision on any other C
issue or issues unnecessary, the Tribunal may not decide such other
issue or issues.

(2) Where the members of the Tribunal differ on their opinion on
any point, the Chairman of the Tribunal shall state the point or points
on which they differ and make a reference to the President of the D
Appellate Tribunal which exercises jurisdic'tion in relation to the
Tribunal who shall refer the case for hearing on such point or points
by a member of another Tribunal under its jurisdiction and such point
or points shall be decided according to the opinion of that member
and such decision shall be deemed to be the decision of the Tribunal. E
(3) The Tribunal shall send a copy of every order passed by it to
the prescribed authority or authorities and to the parties to the
reference, or the application, as the case may be.

(4) Every order passed under sub-section (I) shall, subject to the
decision of the Appellate Tribunal, be final and shall not be called in F
· ·- · question in any Court.

14. Appeal-The Central Government, or any person, named in a
reference or.an application under section 8, or any application under
sub-section (2) of that section or any person named in a reference
under section 8-A may, if it or he is not satisfied with any order made G
by a Tribunal under section 12, prefer an appeal to the Appellate
Tribunal against such order.

20. Expulsion of illegal mig~ant-(1) Where a person has been
determined by a Tribunal, or, as the case may be, by the Appellate H
514 SUPRE:ME COJJRT- REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A T~ibunal, tb be ·an illegal' migrant, the· Central Government shall, by
order served on such person, direct. such person to remove himself
from India within such time and by such route as may be specified
in the order and may give such further directions in regard to his
removal from India as ii may consider necessary or expedient.

B (2) Any police officer not below the ra~k of a Superintendent of
Police shall- have such powers as may be necessary, including the
power to Qbtain a bond fro111 any person for the due compliance of
an order unde~,sub~section ( l) and to arrest such person in the event
of his failure to furnish such bond to the satisfaction of such police
officer.
c
22. Sectio~ 5. provides for establishment of Illegal Migrants
(Determination) Tribunals. Only a .person who has been a District Judge or
Additional District Judge is eligible for becoming a member of the Tribunal
and each Tribunal has to consist of two members. Section 9 gives the powers
D of the Tribunal. Section 15 provides for establiShment of an Appellate Tribunal
which shall consist or not less than two and not more than six members, as
the Central Government may think fit. and only a person who is or has been_
a Judge of the High Cou_rt. is eligible to be appointed as m~m ber thereof. The
Appellate Tribunal:·shall function in benches .consisting of not less than ~o
members. The Meriwrandum -of Appeal shal_l .be accompanied by such fee not
E being less than Rs. 25-qr.tnorethan Rs.ton; aSmay be prescribed. Section 21A.
provides that it ~hall be la~ful for the police. offi:cer not below the rank of
Superintendent of Polic~;.if h~ is satisfied th~t the circumstances so require,
and for reasons to be recorded in writing direct any person against whom a
reference or an application has been made under th.is· Act to enter into a bond
F with or without sureties for making himself availa£le.Jpcinquiry.-Section 25
provides that any person who contravenes or attempts to contravene or fails
to comply with any order or direction given under Section 20 or harbours any
such person shall be punishable with imprisonment for a tenn which shall not
be less than one year but which may extend to three years and with fine,
which shall not be less than two thousand rupees. The proviso to the Section
G empowers the Court to impose lesser sentence or fine for adequate and
special reasons.

23. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 28 of the IMDT Act, the
Central Govemmenthas made the ll\egal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals)
Rules, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules"). Rule 2(ii) defines a
H "competent authority" which means the Central· Government and includes,
SARBANANDA SONOWAL v. U.0.1. [G.P. MATHUR, J.] 515
where a State Government or any officer subordinate to Central Government A
or a State Government is empowered by notification under Section 21 to
exercise and discharge the powers and duties of the Central Government
under Section 8(1) and Section 8-A(l), such State Government or officer. Rule
3 requires that for the purpose of making the reference in relation to any
person under Section 8(1) or Section 8-A(I) to the Tribunal, the competent
authority seized of the matter shall require the Superintendent of Police. to B
direct an officer not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector of Police to make an
inquiry. Rules 4 to 7 lay down that the inquiry officer who has been directed
to make an inquiry shall call upon that person (alleged illegal migra1_1t) to give
information as regards the particulars mentioned in Form-I. He may elicit
information from any other person who may be acquainted with the facts and C
circumstances of the case. The details of the inquiry have to be entered day
by day in a diary kept for the purpose setting forth the time at which ~ny
information reached him, the time at which he began and closed his enquiry
and the place or places visited by him and the statement of the circumstances
ascertained through such enquiry and then he has to submit a report, in Form-
II with the diary, to the immediate superior officer who shall endorse the D
comqients thereon and submit it to the Screening Committee. Rule 8 provides
for constitution of a Screening Committee at every sub-divisional level where
the Tribunals are established and shall consist of two members, one of whom
shall be Sub-divisional Magistrate and other a police. officer not below the
rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police in the sub-division concerned. The E
Screening Committee after scrutiny of the information contained in Form II
has to then make its recommendations to the Superintendent of Police as· to
whether the person mentioned in the report is or is not an illegal migrant. Rule
9 provides that if on recommendations of the Screening Committee and such
further information as the competent authority may call for, it appears to that
authority that the question arises as to whether any person is or is not !an F
illegal migrant, that auth~rity shall make a reference to the Tribunal for its
decision thereon, along with the diary, report of inquiry officer containing the
endorsement of his immediate superior officer, recommendation of the Screen~ng
Committee and any other further information. So a discretion has been conferred
upon the Competent Authority whether to make a reference to the Tribunal G
or not. If the Competent Authority chooses not to make a reference, there is
no right of appeal and the alleged illegal migrant remains untouched. He dan
then safely reside in Assam. Rules 10 and 10-A provide that the application
to the Tribunal under Section 8(2) shall be in Form III and to the Central
Government under Section 8-A(2) in Form V. Rule 13 provides that the
Superintendent of Police shall, as far as may be, follow the procedure as H
516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A specified in :Rules 3 to'~ while making an inquiry in respect of a notice issued
to him by the Ttibun;tl under Section 11 (I). Rules 14 to 19 lay down the
procedure fdr fitlng apP,eals to the Appellate Tribunal which has to be in Fonn
IV, th~ fee ~<tbe p~j4:and als6·:,the contents of the Memorandum of Appeal
etc.· T4e ~ul~s, t~~~;~W~tairt. a·rery stringent and time cons,uming procedure

8 .for hbtdj?.~::~1·f[:~~~~~w,~~~iry:·:.·. ·. • . ··. .
24. In.viewof:S·cfoiion3(l)(c) of the IMDT Act, an illegal migrant is a
• • G .'·- - '<• ' ·"'

person with respect,to. whom all the three conditions, namely, (i) has entered
India on or aft,er :~Sth March, 197 I; (ii) is a foreigner which means he is not
a citizen· of Indfai and' (iii) has entered India without being in possession of
C a valid ·passport o{other .travel documents or any other lawful authority in
this behalf, are satisfied. Therefore, if a foreigner has entered India on or after
25th March, 1971, he ·w~uld be dealt. with under the IMDT. Act, while as a
foreigner wh()J1as entered any part of India including Assam before 25th
March, l971_f;\yould_:be:de~lt with un9er the Foreigners Act. Section 4 of the
IMDT;,\~{is''.afi.uyerr}ding.pf6\iJ~ioil<wh,ich lays down .that the IMDT Act or
D the_ Rule br otd~r trta~i·iherein;·~hatl have effect notwithstanding anything
contained in the Fot~ig~ers).ct, 1946 or the Immigrants· (Expulsion from
Assam) Act, 1950 or:tl)~J~>issp<>rt Act or ~ny Rule or Order made thereunder.
Section 8(1) eonfers power on th~ Central Government to make a reference for
its decisi~n. to the. triburial whetfiet a~y person is an illeg~l migrant or not.
E This reference can also be made- or{~ representation made by an illegal
migrant against any order passed against him. under the Foreigners Act not
to remain in India. This.provisio~gives speciai advantage to an illegal migrant
in Assam, whic~ i~J:iot avaifable to any foreigner in rest of India..section 8(2)
,provides .$~t any pets~~ n_:iay ,make an applic_ation to the Tribunal whether
. .any Pe?:~Q~' ~hos~·'!\~~j~J:¥,iY~~~~11·:·t~~ }PP}ica,i!o·n, is or Is not an illegal
F migrant bri!;iheJ1rovzso; to fhts:·stfb1.section' imposes a restriction that such
r!- ·anappfa:at.i6'hian\~giV~n·ciniy~i,-y:~·J.I~rson Wh~iives Within the jurisdiction )
· of the -~a~~;;p9fi~~:~;¥!19~,::i~-~~~~Jf:~~·;~lltged illegal migrant is found or
resides, Sectfon 8(3}.~mposes some·Jurthei' conditions and restrictions, namely,
\
that the application:shaU:be ac~rimpanied by affidavits sworn by not less than \
two persons residihg)vithin the jurisdiction of the same police station in
G which the alleg~4 ilfegaf,,inig.fant is found or is residing and a Court Fee of
Rs. IO has to be pa1d~j;~ction:S~A lays- down that any person may make an
application to t):te C~n\t~t-Govem~etit'f<;>r decision by a Tribunal as to whether
the l'ersori .~hose·name :and .other- particulars are given in the application is --
or\s nofaQ. illegar·.mig~.anc'i~ view of sub-section (2) of this Section, the I
H application has to be.~icompanied by a declaration by another person residing
SARBANANDA SON OW AL v. U.0.1. {G.P. MATHUR,].] 517
~ within the jurisdiction of the same revenue sub-divisfon in which the applicant A
resides and further conditions are imposed that no person shall make more
than ten such applications or more than. ten such declarations. The Central
Government may, after making such inquiry, it deeins fit, reject as
application the
on the ground that it is frivolous or vexatfous-' In view ofthe language used
in Section 14 there is no right of appeal against such J1ii'order right bf as
appeal is conferred only. against an ord~r' passea by, ~h~ TribunaI::1md~r B
Section 12. The order of rejectio~ 'of tlle::applicatlon erture ·t()th~'benefit . ,will
• ' . .. >.·~,... ·.· -.~-··... .-.~.-~Ji!"".J"
• • • :i. •. . :_.~· - ·· . . .

of the alleged illegal migr,ant arid there b_eing tto righLofappeal it ~;ill attai)l ·
finality making him safe and secure. If the CentraI°'GovetnmenLrilakes a
refere~ce it will only initiate the proceedings before the Tribunal causing no
immediate prejudice to the illegal migrant and if the Tribunal ultimately hol~s C
against him, he will have a right of appeal to the Appellate Tribunal.

25. It is very important to note here that lMDT Act does not contain
any provision similar to Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 regarding
burden of proof. On the contrary it is conspicuously :silent about )t. In such
circumstances a very heavy burden is cast ul}on the authorities of the State D
or the applicant to establish that a person is an illegal: migrant as defined in
Section 3(l)(c) of IMDTAct and is liable for deportation.

26. Rule 4 requires an inquiry officer to elicit information and particular~
from the alleged illegal migrant on the points mentioned in Form I. Itetn No.5,
10, 11, 12 of this Form are as under:- E·
5. Address in the country of origin (village, police station, district
and country).

IO. Does the person hold any passp~rt:iSsuecFby ariy' f-0reign country
? If so furnish particulars. · · ;· ; . : ' · ".' • '.. · . F
11. What are the reasons for leaving.the person's country of origin
?
• . ''•"' :O• .; ......
.
•.
< . ~ :~

.· • . •. ·. - '· r' -... .',J ~
.. .. : '·J ~--:· ••, .. .,:.·. ,.".'" (t·;;.., ::.. · . .·- 0 : •

12. If the. person· ffas. enterj;!d into lndi~ ·~jth()\!t a· passport,. how' the 1

person·. eriiere'd ·Jll(li~·~i-~.:- ;;·~-:·» '. -~ >~T~; ~ ·~·~-~;:~~.._. :~· · ·_ .·i , ·. ·
. . . ·-'·'·.... ·:". ··.,> ·.... ·: ·.. ·. ,Q
(Name of village, DistriCrfrom· which the pers.on entered). Date
of entry.
. . .
It is elementary that a person who has iileg~lly ·c~mdfom Bangladesh :
to India and is residing here for his better eco~ortiic prospects or employment
etc. would never disclose that he has come from'Bahgladesh but.would assert H -
518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A that he is an Indian national and resides in India. There is no question of his
telling his date of entry or giving any information on the aforesaid points.
According to Rules 7 and 8 of the Rules, the inquiry officer has to submit
a report in Form II and Item No.5, 10, 11 and 12 are exactly identical to that
in Form I. Rules 10, 10-A and 10-B lay down that an application to the
B Tribunal under Section 8(2) shall be made in Form III, an application to the
Central Government under Section 8-A(2) shail be made in Form V and a
declaration under Section 8-A(2) shall be made in Forms V and VI. Curiously
enough Column No.6 of Form III requires the applicant to furnish the foliowing
information regarding the alleged illegal migrant: -

(a) whether he entered India on or after 25th March, 1971;
c
(b) date of his entry into India;

(c) whether he is a foreigner; and
(d) whether he entered India without bein~ in possession of a valid
passport or travel document or lawful authority in that behalf.
D
The contents of the application (form III) have to be affirmed by the applicant
that what is stated in the application is true to the best of his information and
belief. The application to the Central Government has to be made in Form V
which contains a similar Column 6 with two further additions, namely;

E (i) the approximate distance between the place of residence of the
applicant and the alleged illegal migrant;
(ii) since when the alleged illegal migrant is staying at the said place.

In Column 7 the applicant has to give details of (a) documentary; and (b) oral
F evidence in his possession. The application has to be affirmed that the facts
stated are true to the best of his information and belief and that he has not
I
made more than 10 such applications. It contains a further clause to the
following effect :

"I am aware that in the event of this application being found as
G false or made with a view to cause vexation to the person named in
this application or any member of his family, I am liable to be proceeded
against in accordance with law for giving false evidence."

Form VI which is a declaration to be made under Section 8-A(2) by
another person in.corroboration of the application contains a similar affirmation
H clause and also the clause quoted above regarding prosecution in the event
SARBANANDA SONOWAL v. U.6.t [O:P. MATHUR, J.] 519
the facts mentioned are found to be false . A
.-.
27. To give the exact date of entry into India of a Bangladeshi national,
who has illegally and surreptitiously crossed the international border, is not
only difficult but virtuously impossible. A citizen doing his duty towards
nation of pointing out the presence -of a Bangladeshi national !9 the authorities
of the State is put under threat of·~rifJlinal prosecution, if the contents of the B
application are found to be fal5e. Thi.s is bound.t~ 'have a cascading effect
on citizens who will prefer to remain a.quiet sped~tor to the continued influx
of illegal migrants from Bangladesh. rather .than to ·take initiative in the it
detection or deportation. ',,

28. The analysis of the provisions ~fIMDT Act arid the Rules maM C
thereunder clearly demonstrate thaqhe provisions thereof a~e very stringent
as compared to the provisions ofForeigners Act, 1946 or foreigners (Tribunals).·
Order, 1964, in the matter of detection and deportation of illegal migrants. It
is far more easier to secure conviction of a person' in a ciiminal trial where.
he may be awarded a capital punishment or imprisonment for life than to D
I
establish that a person is an illegal migrant .on account of extremely difficult,
cumbersome and time consuming procedure lai'd down in the IMDT Act and
the Rules made thereunder. The Act does ncit contain any provision for
constitution of a screening committee which has been done under the Rules
and has been conferred a very wide p~wer of rejecting complaints against·~
which no appeal lies. The figures supplied in the initial affidavit filed by the E
State of Assam show that more than eighty five per cent enquiries initiated
were rejected and no reference was made to the Tribunal. Similarly, the
restrictions imposed on an applicant, a citizen oflridia doing a national duty
of pointing out the presence of an illegal migrant in Assam, that he should
be resident of same police station or same sub-division where the illegal p
migrant resides or is found does not carry any sense as these migrants keep
moving. The requirement regarding application being accompanied by affidavits
of two persons who are residents of same police station or being accompanied
by declaration of another person who is resident of same sub-division or that
not more than ten such applications can be filed or ten such declarations
made do not serve any purpose except to create hurdles in .the matter of G
identification and deportation of illegal migrants. Not every person feels that
_ he owes a duty towards the nation and he should initiate proceedings for
deportation of an illegal migrant. The applicant als9 incurs. risk to his own
security and safety besides spending time and energy :in prosecuting the
matter. Similarly, there is hardly any sense in rriaking a provision for mentioning H
520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A the time and date of visit to a place by an enquiry officer in a diary. A deep
analysis of the IMDT Act and the Rules made thereunder would reveal that
they have been purposely so enacted or made so as to give shelter or
protection to illegal migrants who came to Assam from Bangladesh on or after
25th March, 1971 rather than to identify and deport them.

B 29. The learned Additional Solicitor General and Shri K.K. Venugopal
have laid great stress on the submission that the IMDT Act provides a very
fair procedure for detennining whether a person is an illegal migrant or not
as the said question is decided by a Judicial Tribunal consisting of two
members, who are or have been Additional District iudges or District Judges.
C Similarly, the Appellate Tribunal consists of two members, who are or have
been Judge of a High Court. The argument overlooks the fact that the
Screening Committee does not consist of any judicial member but is manned
by the executive. The same is the case with the Competent Authority. But the
Screening Committee or the Competent Authority have the power to reject an
enquiry at the threshold by not making a reference to the Tribunal. The
D figures supplied in the affidavits show that more than 85 per cent of the '
enquiries were rejected in this manner. It means that an order in favour of an
alleged illegal migrant, which is not even appealable, ca{!. be passed by the
executive but an order declaring a person to be illegal migrant must necessarily
be passed by a Judicial Tribunal with a further right of appeal to the Appellate
E Tribunal. This shows how one-sided the provisions of the IMDT Act are.
They have been so made that they only result in giving advantage and
benefits to an illegal migrant and. not for achieving the real objective of the
enactment, namely, of detection and deportation of a Bangladeshi national
who has illegally crossed the border on or after 25th March, 1971.

F 30. The State of Assam in its affidavit filed on 24.8.2000 has pointed out
some practical problems..in the implementation of the IMDTAct due to which
the Act has not become effective and the results are extremely poor, which
are as under: -

"(i) The onus of proof as illegal migrants lies on the prosecution
G under IMDT Act which is opposed to the Foreigners Act, 1946
under which the onus is on the suspected foreigners.
(ii) There is no provision in IMDT Act for compelling the suspect ·.
to furnish particulars required in Form No. I of !MDT Rules and
a corresponding penal provision to deal .with such suspect in ·
H case of their refusal to furnish information as required in Rule 5.
SARBANANDA SONOWAL v. U.0.1. [G.P. MATHUR, J.] 521

(ill) There is no provision for compelling suspect witness to furnish A
information or statement to Police Officers making enquiries and
as such taking recourse to action under Section 176 IPC is difficult
in case of refusal.
(iv) The Enquiry Officer is not empowered to search home/pre~ises
of the suspects nor can he compel the suspects to proouce B
documents to give necessary information.
(v) Prosecution witnesses do not appear before the Tribuna~ for
want of necessary allowances .
.... (vi) Once the Tribunals declares a person as an illegal migrant, he/
she becomes untraceable either before the notice is served or c
during the grace period of 30 days.
(vii) Notice/summons issued by the Tribunals cannot easily be served
due to frequent changes of address by the illegal migranis in
unknown destinations.
D
(viii) The expulsion _orders cannot be served as the illegal. migqmts,
with frequent change of address, merge with the people of similar
ethnic origin.

/ (ix) It is provided in the Act that for filing complaint against a
suspected person to determine as to whether he is an illegal
migrant, two persons living within the same Police Station are
E
required to file the complaint with filing of affidavit and an amount
ofRs.10.00 which was originally Rs.25.00 is to be deposited with
the application. This provision of the Act puts a severe restriction
in filing any complaint against an illegal migrant.

(x) The Tribunals after observing a long drawn. procedure declare a
F
person as illegal migrant who is to be deported from India !but
sue~ deportation ~ecomes very difficult as the illegal mignmts
change their residence and shift to some other areas.
-4
(XI) There are instances of strong resistance to the Enquiry Officer
conducting enquiries against the illegal migrants in Char areas G
(riverain areas) and other locations where there is he~vy
concentration of immigrant population."

31. Section 25 of the IMDT Act provides that contravention or non-
compliance of any order made under Section 20 shall be punishable with H
522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A imprisonment for a term which may not be less than one year but which may
extend to three years and with fine, which shall not be less than two thousand
rupees. The proviso to this section says that the Court '!lay for special ~·nci_
adequate reasons to be recorded impose the sentence of imprisonment fo~ ·a
term of less than one year or a fine of less than two thousand rupees. Section
14 of the Foreigners Act (after amendment by Act No.16 _of 2004) provides
B for imprisonment which may extend to five years and fine. Section 14-A and
14-B of the Foreigners Act provide punishment for a term which shall not;be
less than two years but may extend to eight years and also fine whic,4 _shall
not be less than ten thousand rupees but may extend to fifty thousand
rupees. Section 14-C provides the same punishment for abetment of any one '
C of the above offences. Thus, the punishment provided under the Fore.lgners
Act is more severe than under the IMDT Act. ,. -

32 .. The foremost duty of the -Central Govemmel).t. is to ·defend the
borders of the country, prevent any trespass and make the life of the citizens
safe and secure. The Government has also a duty to prevent any internal
D disturbance and maintain law and order. Kautilya in his masterly work "The
Arthashastra" has said that a King had two responsibilities to his state, one
internal and one external, for which he needed an army. One of the main
responsibilities was Raksha or protection of the state from external aggression.
The defence of the realm, a constant preoccupation for the king, consisted
E not only of the physical defence of the kingdom but also the prevention of
treachery, revolts and rebellion. The physical defensive measures were the
frontier posts to prevent the entry of undesirable aliens and forts in various
parts of the country. (Arthashastra by Kautilya translated by Shri L.N.
Rangarajan, who was in Indian Foreign Service and ambassador of India ip
several countries published by Penguin Books 1992 Edn. page 676). The very
F first entry, namely, Entry 1 of List I of the Seventh Schedule is "Defence of
India and every part thereof including preparation for defence and all such
acts as may be conducive in times of war to its prosecution and after its
termination of effective demobilization". In fact entries 1 to 4 of List I of
Seventh Schedule mainly deal with armed forces. Article 355 of the Constitution
G of India reads as under :-

355. Duty of the Union to protect States against'external aggression
and internal disturbance.-It shall be the duty ,of the Union to
protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance
and to ensure that the· Government of every State is carried on in
H accordance with the provisions of this Constitution."
SARBANANDA SONOWAL v. U.0.1. [G.P. MATHUR, J.] 523
The word "aggression" is a word of very wide import. Various meanings A
to the word have been given in the dictionaries, like, "an assault, an inroad,
the practice of setting upon anyone; an offensive action or procedure; the
practice of making attacks or encroachments; the action of a nati.on in violatin'g
the rights especially the territorial rights of another nation; over_t destruction;
covert hostile attitudes."
B
The word "aggression" is not to be confused only with "war". Though
war would be included within the ambit and scope of the word "aggression1'
but it comprises many other acts which cannot be termed as war. In Kawasaki
v. Bant~hm S.S. Company, (I 938) 3 All ER 80, the following definition of"war'.'
as given in Hall on International Law has been quoted with approval :- C
,'
"When differences between States reach a point at which both partie~
resort to force, or one of them does acts of violence, which the other
chooses to look upon as a breach of the peace, the relation of war
is set up, in which the combatants may use regulated violence against
each other, until one of the two has been brought to accept sucl~ D
terms as his enemy is willing to grant."

In Introduction to International Law by J.G. Starke (Chapter 18) it is said
that the war in its most generally understood sense is a contest between two
or more states primarily through their armed forces, the ultimate purpose of
each contestant or each contestant group being to vanquish the other or E
others and impose its own conditions of peace. With the passage of time, the
nature of war itself has become more distinctly Clarified as a formal status of
armed hostility, in which the intention of the parties, the so-called animus
belligerendi may be a decisive factor. The modern war may involve not
merely the armed forces of belligerent states but their entire population. In' p
I
Essays on Modem Law of War by L.C. Green the author has said that in
accordance with traditional international law, "war is- a contention between,
two or more States through their armed forces, for the purpose of overpowering ,
each other and imposing such conditions of peace as the victor pleases.".
The framers of the Constitution have consciously used the word "aggression" ,
and not "war" in Article 355. G
33. Article I of Chapter I of the Charter of the United Nations gives the
purposes of the United Nations and the first is to maintain international peace
and security, and to that end : to take effective collective measures for the ·
prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of . H
acts of aggression or other breaches of peace, and to bring about by peaceful
524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A means, and in confonnity with the principles of justice and international law,
adjustments or settlement of international disputes or situations which might
lead to a breach of peace. On account of use of expression "acts of aggression"
it was thought necessary to define "aggression" and explain what it exactly
means. The International Law Commission defined the tenn "aggression" as
B any act of aggression including the employment of anned forces by a State
against another State for any purpose other than national or collective self-
defence or any decision by a competent organ of the United Nations. But at
the 1954 Assembly, there was opposition to this definition. In his book
Conflict through Consensus by Julius Stone (1977 Edn.), the author has
described in great detail how after twenty years of discussion by a Special
C Committee on "aggression"' a consensus was arrived at and an agreed
definition was approved by the United Nations Assembly on 12th April, 1974
vide Resolution No.3314 (XXIX). The Soviet Union pressed for inclusion of
"ideological aggression" and also "the promotion of the propaganda offascist-
nazi views, racial and national exclusiveness, hatred and contempt for other
D peoples." Iran pressed for inclusion of "indirect aggression, of intervention
in another State's internal or foreign affairs", including "direct or indirect
incitement to civil war, threats to internal security, and incitement to revolt by ·
the supply of arms or by other means.". Many States wanted the definition
to include "economic aggression". Shri M. Jaipal of India advocated that in
view of "modem techniques of coercion" the definition of aggression should
E have included "economic pressures" and "interventionary and subversive
operations." (See page 97 of the book) Julius Stone has quoted the following
comments of Charles de Visscher, on the notion of aggression : "aggression,
in the present state of international relations, is not a concept that can be
enclosed in any definition whatsoever : the finding that it has. occurred in any
F concrete case involves political and military judgments and a subjective
weighing of motives that make this in each instance a strictly individual
matter." Rapporteur Spiropoulos explained to the International Law Commission
that a detennination of aggression "can only be given in each concrete case
in conjunction with all constitutive elements of the concept of the definition".
According to the author what needs also to be kept in mind is that this is
G precisely because the "aggression" notion is a fact value complex of such
vast range. (See pages 108-109 of the book). Therefore, "aggression" is a
word of very wide import having complex dimensions and would to a large
extent depend upon fact situation and its impact.

34. There was a large scale influx of persons from the then East Pakistan
H into India before the commencement of December 1971 Indo-Pak war. On 3rd
SARBANANDA SONOWAL v. U.0.1. [G.P. MATHUR, J.] 525
November, 1971, one month before the actual commencement ofthe war, Dr. A
Nagendra Singh, India's representative in the Sixth Committee of the General
Assembly on the Definition of Aggression, made a statement, wherein he
said:-

. " ........... ,.....The first consideration, in the view of the Indian Delegation,
is that aggression must be comprehensively defined. Though precision B
may be the first virtue of a good definition, we would not like to
sacrifice the requirement of a comprehensive definition of aggression
at any cost. There are many reasons for holding this view. Aggression
can be of several kinds such as direct or indirect, armed in nature or
even without the use of any arms whatsoever. There can be even C
direct aggression without arms.......................................... We would
accordingly support the categorical view expressed by the
distinguished delegate of Burma, the U.K. and others that a definition
of aggression excluding indirect methods would b~ incomplete and
therefore dangerous.
D
•••H••• ..••••••••••••••H•••••••••••••H•H•••••••H•••H••••••••••uo••••••••••H••••••••• .. •:•••••••••••••••••••••••H••-.. •••••••oo•••••••••••••••~•H•••••

I For example, there could be a unique type of bloodless aggression
from a vast and incessant flow of millions of human beings forced to E
' flee into another State. If this invasion of unarmed men in totally
unmanageable proportion were to not only impair the economic and
political well-being of the receiving victim State but to threaten its
very existence, I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, it would have to be
categorized as aggression. In such a case, there may not be use of
armed force across the frontier since the use of force may be tot~lly F
confined within one's territorial boundary, but if this results in
inundating the neighbouring State by millions of fleeing citizens of
the offending State, there could be an aggression of a worst
order............................................... What I wish to convey, Mr. Chairman,
is the complexity of the problem which does not permit of a four-line G
definition of aggression· much less an ad-interim declaration on it.';

(See Vol. l l (1971) Indian Journal oflntemational Lawp. 724)

~ This shows that the stand of our country before the U.N.O. was that
influx of large number of persons from across the border into India would be H
526 , SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A an act of aggression.
35. In the later part of nineteenth century large number of Chinese
labour had started going to U.S.A. The U.S. Congress passed legislations to
restrict and then to totally stop their entry in the country. One such Chinese
labourer who had earlier worked there for over ten years and had a certificate
B to that effect came back after a visit to his home in China but was detained
in the ship in San Francisco port. His habeas corpus petition was dismissed
by the circuit court and then an appeal was taken. to U.S. Supreme Court.
Certain observations made in the judgment, which is reported in 130 U.S. 581
(Chae Chan Ping v. United States), are very illuminating and are being
C reproduced below: -

"To preserve,
'
~ .'
its independence, and
.
give security against foreign
aggression and encroachment, is the highest duty of every nation,
and to attain: these ends nearly all other considerations are to be
subordinated. It matters not in what form such aggression and
D encroachment come, whether from the foreign nation acting in its
national character or from vast hordes of its people crowding in upon
us. The Government, possessing the powers which are to be exercised
for protection apd security, is clothed with authority to determine the
occasion on i~hich the powers shall be called forth; and its
determination, ·so far as the subjects affected ~re concerned, are
E
necessarily conclusive upon all its departments and'officers. If,
therefor~, th~·povernment of the United. States,through its legislative
department, considers the presence of foreigners of a different race
in the country, who will not assimilate with us to be dangerous to its
peace and security, their exclusion is not to be stayed because at the
F time there are no actual hostilities with the nation of which the
. foreigners are subjects. The existence of war would render the necessity
of the proceeding only more obvious and pressing. The same necessity,
in a less pressing degree, may arise when war does not exist and the
same authority which adjudges the necessity in one case must also
determine it in the other."
G
(Emphasis supplied)

China is not contiguous to U.S.A. The journey from a port in China to San
Francisco, as the facts of the case show, used to take about a month and_
H having regard to the expenses involved and the carrying capacity of a ship
in those days (1870;90) the numbernfChinese labour coming to U.S.A. would
SARBANANDA SONOWAL v. U.0.1. [G.P. MATHUR, J.] S2:-/

have been miniscule compared to the influx of people from Bangladesh. Yet A
the U.S. Supreme Court viewed it as "aggression" and the presence of such
foreigners as "dangerous to peace and security of the nation".

36. Lord Denning in his book "The Due Process of Law" has writteq
an "Introduction" to Part Five "Entrances and Exits" (page 155) and the
opening paragraph thereof reads as under :
1
B
"In recent times England has been invaded - not by enemies nor by
friends but by those who seek England as a haven. In their own
countries there are poverty, disease and no homes. In England there,
is social security a national health service and guaranteed housing all.
to be had for the asking without payment and without working for it.: C
Once here, each seeks to bring his relatives to join him. So they:
multiply exceedingly."

(Emphasis supplied):

Thus, one of the most respected and learned Judges of the recent times: D
has tenned the influx of persons from erstwhile colonies of Britain into Britain :
as "invasion". The word "aggression" is, therefore, an all comprehensive,
word having very wide meaning. Its meaning cannot be explained by a'
straight jacket fonnula but will depend on the fact situation of every case. '

The definition of "aggression" as adopted by UN General Assembly ' E
Resolution 3314 (XXIX) was, however, for a limited purpose, namely, whe_re
the Security Council or the United Nations Organization couid interfere and ,
adopt measures in. the event of an aggression by one nation against another '
and the acts enumerated therein which may amount to aggression cannot '
restrict or curtail the meaning or the sense in which the word "aggression" , F
has been used in Article 355 of the Constitution.

37. The very first sentence of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of •
the IMDT Act says "the influx of foreigners who illegally migrated into India
across the borders of the sensitive Eastern and North-Eastern regions of the
country and remained in the country poses a threat to the integrity and :G
t security of the said region." It further says that "continuance of these persons
in India has given rise to serious problems." The Preamble of the Act says
that "the continuance of such foreigners in India is detrimental to the interests
of the public of India." The Governor of Assam in his report dated 8th
November, 1998 sent to the President of India has clearly said that unabated H
528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 1 S;C.R.

A influx of illegal migrants of Bangladesh into Assam has led to a perceptible
change in the demographic pattern of the State and has reduced the Assamese
people to a minority in their own State. It is a contributory factor behind the
outbreak of insurgency in the State and illegal migration not only affects the
people of Assam but has more dangei;ous dimensions of greatly undermining
B our national security. Pakistan's LS.I. is very active in Bangladesh supporting
militants in Assam. Muslim militant organizations have mushroomed in Assam.
The report also says that this can lead to the severing of the entire landmass
of the north-east with all its resources from the rest of the country which will
have disastrous strategic and economic consequences. The report is by a
person who has held the high and responsible position of Deputy Chief of
C the Army Staff and is very well equipp~d to recognize the potential danger
or threat to the security of the nation by the unabated influx and continued
presence of Bangladeshi nationals in India. Bangladesh is one of the world's
most populous countries having very few industries. The economic prospects
of the people in that country being extremely grim, they are to~ keen to cross
over the border and occupy the land wherever it is possible to do so. The
D report of the Governor, the affidavits and other material on record show that
millions of Bangladeshi nationals have illegally crossed the international
border and have occupied vast tracts of land like "Char land" barren or
cultiv~ble land, forest area and have ta~en possession of the same in the State
of Assam. Their willingness to work at low wag~ has deprived Indian citizens
E and specially people in Assam of employment opportunities. This, as stated
in the Governor's report, has led to insurgency in Assam. Insurgency is
undoubtedly a serious form of internal disturbance which causes grave threat
to the life of people, creates panic situation and also hampers the growth and
ecm1omi~ prosperity of the_ State of Assam though it possesses vast natural -
resources.
F
· 38. This being the situation ther_e ·can be no manner of doubt that the
State of Assam is· facing "external aggression and internal disturbance" .on
account of large scale illegal migration of Bangladeshi nationals. It, therefore,
becomes the duty of Union of fodia to take-all measures for protection.of the
G State of Assam from such external aggression and internal disturbance as
enjoined in Article 355 of the Constitution. Having regard to this constitutional
mandate, the question arises whether the Union of India has taken any
measures for that purpose. _:+;_,

39. We have considered the provisions of the Foreigners Act;-Foreigners
H (Tribunals) Order, 1964 and-also the IMDT Act and the Rules made thereunder
SAR8i".\NANDA SONOWAL v. U.0.1. [G.P. MATHUR, J.) 529
in considerable detail in the earlier part of the judgment. They clearly A ~
demonstrate that the procedure under the Foreigners Act and also under the
Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 is far more effective in identification and
deportation of foreigners as compared to the procedure under the IMDT Act
and the Rules made._thereunder. There being no corresponding provision like
Section 9 of the Foreigners Act which places the burden of proof upon the B
person ·(oncemed who claims to be an Indian citizen, which is absolutely
essential· in relation to the nature of inquiry being conducted regarding ,/
determination of a person's citizenship (where t~e facts on the basis of which
·an_.ppin.ion is to be formed and a decision is taken are entirely within the
kno~ledge of the said person) has made the"task of tbe law enforcem~nt
. .ag~nci~s of the State -not only difficult but virt_ually impossible. The IMDT :C
'). ,.
~. :_.. ~ --...,. -
.. · -~Act has been so enacted and the Rules thereunder have been so made that ·
. innumerable and unsurmountable. 9iffic~lties are created in the matter of · /
identification and deportatio.n of illegal· migrants. No elaborate discussion on
this aspect is required as the iig~r~}~-di~c1osed in the affidavits filed by the
Union of India and the State of As$am speak for themselves. Though inquiries
were initiated in 3107 59 cases under the IMDT Act but out of this only 10015 D "
persons were declared as illegal migrants and fi!l~lly only 1481 illegal migrants
were physically expelled upto 30th April, 2000. This comes to less than half
per cent of the cases initiatedi- In, the State of West Bengal, where the
, Foreigners Actis applicable, 48~Q46 persons were actually deported between
.· 1983 and N_ovember 1998, which is a lesser period and even this result was :E
termed as -unsatisfactory in the counter affidavit filed by the Union of India.
Thus, t~ere cannot be ·even a slightest doubt that the application of the IMDT
Act·and the Rules made thereunder in the State of Assam has created the
-biggest hurdfe l!-,nd 'is 1he~;~ain impediment or barrier in identification and
deportation of illega!.rnig'#ants. On the contrary, it is coming to the advantage
of such illegal migrants as any proceedings initiated against them under the f
said provision which, as demonstrated above, almost entirely ends in their
favour, enables them to have a document having official sanctity to the effect
that they are not illegal migrants. As already discussed, the presence of such
a large number of illegal migrants from Bangladesh, which runs into millions,
is in fact an "aggression" on the State of Assam and has also contributed G
significantly in causing serious "internal disturbances" in the shape of
insurgency of alarming proportion making the life of the people of Assam
wholly insecure and the panic generated thereby has created a fear psychosis,
This has resulted in seriously hampering the growth of the State of Assam
although it has vast natural resources as people from rest of the country have
a general perception that it is a disturbed area and this factor has resulted H
530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A in not generating any employment opportunity which 'has contributed to a
large measure in.giving rise to insurgency. The impact is such that it not only
affects the State of Assam but it also affects its sister States like Arunachal
Pradesh, Meghalaya, Nagalaitd; etc. as ·the route to the said places passes
through the State. of Assam.
t .)

B 40. The Parliament enacted the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act,
1950 and the ;Statement of Objects .and Reasons thereof read~ as under; -

"Quring the.fast few months a serious ·situ~tion had arisen from
~the immigration of a very Jarge number of East'.Bengal residents into
Assam. Such large '1}ign~tion is disturbing the ecpnomy of the Province,
besides giving rise
. .
to a serious law. and
.
order. pr-Oblem.
.. ' The
. Bill seeks
to confer necess~ry powers on the Central Go\'.ernment to deal with
the situation."

The Preamble to the aforesaid Act says: ~

D . "An Act to provide ·for the expulsJon of certain immigrants from
Assam." ·· . . · •· · · · · ·

Section 2 of this Act lays down that if the Central Government is of
opinion .that any person or class of pe~sons, having. be~n ordinarily resident
. •. .. ·t - .

in any place outside India~ has or ~ave, whether, before or after the
E commencement of this Act, come into Assam an~ ~hat the stay" of such
person or class of persons in Assam. is detrimental to the interest of the
general
.
public. of India or of any section
-
thereof or of, any Sl:heduled
. Tribe.
in Assam, the Central Government tnay by order direct such person or class
of pers9ns to remove himself or themselves from India or Assam and give
F such further direction in regard to his or their removal from India. Proviso of
this Section says that it will not apply to any person who on account of civil
disturbances or the fear of such disturbances in any area now forming part
of Pakistan has been displaced from his place of residence in such area and
who has been subsequently residing in Assam. Section 3 confers power on
Central Government to delegate the powers and duties conferred upon it by
G Section 2 to any officers subordinate to the Central Government. It may be
noted that the reference to the word "East Bangal" in the Statement of
Objects and Reasons of the aforesaid Act, which came into force on l st
March, 1950, meant.East Pakistan, which is the present Bangladesh. Realising
the serious law and order problem created by migration from East Pakistan
H and the serious_situation arising therefroln. the sai~ Act was enacted andf

. '·
SARBANANDASONOWALv. U.0.1. [G.P.MATHUR,J.] 531
conferred very wide powers upon the Central Government to direct removal A
of any person outside India. However, on account of Section 4 of the IMDT
Act the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 has been superseded
and the provisions of the said Act have ceased to apply to the State of
Assam. Thus by enacting the IMDT Act the Parliament has divested the.
Central Government of the power to remove migrants from Bangladesh, whose
presence was creating serious law and order problem, which fact had been B
realized by the Central Government as early as in 1950. The IMDT Act instead
of maintaining peace has only revived internal disturbance.

41. Another important enac.tment, whose provisions have been
superseded by Section 4 of.the IMDT Act, is The Passport (Entry into India) C
Act, 1920. Sub-section ( 1) of Section 3 of this Act conferred power upon the
Central Government to make rules requiring that J1ersons entering India shall
be in possession of passports and for all matters ancillary or incidental to that
purpose. Sub-section (2) of this Section says that without prejudice to the
, generality of the powers conferred by sub-section (I), the rules may prohibit
the entry into India or any part thereof of any person who has· not in his D
possession a passport issued to him and also prescribe the authorities by
whom passports must have been issued or renewed and the conditions which
they must comply for the purposes of the Act. Sub-section (3) lays down that
· the rules made under this Section may provide that any contravention thereof
or of any order issued under the authority of any such rule shall be punishable E
with imprisonment for a term which may· extend to three months or with fine
or with both. Section 4 says that any officer of police not below the rank of
Sub-Inspector and any officer of the customs department empowered by a
general or special order of the Central Government in this behalf may arrest
without warrant any person who has contravened or against whom a reasonable
suspicion' exists that he has contravened any rule ~r order made under F
Section 3. Section 5 provides that the Central Government may, by general or
special order, direct the removal of any person from India who, in contravention
of any rule made under Section 3 prohibiting entry into India without passport,
has entered therein, and thereupon any officer of the qovernment shall have
all reasonable powers necessary to enforce such direction. By virtue of the G
power conferred by this Act, all such nationals of Bangladesh, who have
entered India without a passport, could be arrested without a warrant by a
police officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector. The Central Government
also had the power t-0 direct removal of any such person who had entered
India in contravention of a rule made under Section 3 prohibiting entry into
India without a passport. However, Section 4 of the iMDT Act has stripped H
532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A the Central Government of its power of removal of such person from India and
also the power of arrest of such person without warrant possessed by a
police officer of the rank of Sub-Inspector or above.

42. The above discussion leads to irresistible conclusion that the
provisions of the IMDT Act and the Rules made thereunder clearly negate
B the constitutional mandate contained in Article 355 of the Constitution, where
a duty has been cast upon the Union of India to prot~ct every State against
external aggression and internal disturbance. The IMDT Act which contravenes
Article 355 of the Constitution is, therefore, wholly unconstitutional and must
be struck down.
c 43. Shri Ashok Desai, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ
petitioner, has submitted that the application of the IMDT Act to the State
of Assam alone is wholly discriminatory and violates Article 14 of the
Constitution as the classification made is not founded upon any intelligible
differentia and there -is no nexus between the basis of the classification and
D the object of the IMDT Act. Reliance has been placed on a Seven Judge
Bench decision of this Court in Budhan Chaudhry v. State of Bihar, AIR
(1955) SC 191 and some other cases in support of this submission. Shri
Amarendra Saran, learned Additional Solicitor General and also Shri K.K.
Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Assam, have
submitted that the classification made on the basis of historical facts and/or
E geographical criteria is a perfectly valid classification and the petitioner cannot
complain of violation of Article 14 on the ground that the IMDT Act has been
made applicable only to the State of Assam. It has been further urged that
a classification made whereunder an Act is made applicable only to some of
the Districts in a State or even to a part of a District on account of some
p geographical consideration would be perfectly valid and would not offend
Article 14 of the Constitution in any manner. In support of this submission,
learned counsel have placed reliance on several decisions namely, D.P. Joshi
v. State of Madhya Bharat, AIR (1955) SC 334, Kishan Singh v. State of
Rajasthan AIR (1955) SC 795, Gopi Chand v. Delhi Administration AIR 1959
SC 609, Kangshari Haldar v. State of West Bengal, AIR (1960) SC 457 and
G Clarence Pais v. Union of India, [2001] 4 sec 325. We do' not consider it
necessary to refer to all the cases cited by learned counsel for the parties as
the principle enunciated therein is basically the same and it will suffice to refer
to only one such decision, namely, Kan gs hart Haldar (supra), where
Gajendragadkar, J. (as His Lordship then was) held as under :
<·

H "In considering the validity of the impugned statute on the ground
SARBANANDASONOWALv. U.0.1. [G.P.MATHUR,J.] 533
that it violates Article 14 it would first be necessary to ascertain the A
policy underlying the statute and the object intended to be achieved
by it. In this process the preamble to the Act and its material provisions
can and must be considered. Having thus ascertained the policy and
the object of the Act the court should apply the dual test in examining
its validity: Is the classification rational and based on intelligible B
differentia; and, has the basis of differentiation any rational nexus
with its avowed policy and object? If both these tests are satisfied,
the statute must be held to be valid; and in such a case the
consideration as to whether the same result could not have been
better achieved by adopting a different classification would be foreign
to the scope of the judicial enquiry. If either of the two tests is not C
satisfied, the statute must be struck down as violative of Article 14."

- 44. Section 8(1) of the IMDT Act says that if any question arises as to
whether any person is or is not an illegal migrant, the Central Government
may, whether such question has ar!sen on a representation made by such
person against an order under the Foreigners Act, 1946 requiring him not to D
remain in India or to any other effect or has arisen in any other manner
whatsoever, refer such question. to a Tribunal for decision. This provision
gives very special and advantageous right to an illegal migrant. Even though
an order may have been passed under the Foreigners Act against an illegal
migrant, he gets a right to mak~ a representation to the Central Government
for making a reference to the Tfib'~nal, which wili'then proceed in accordance E
with IMDT Act having a furth~r ~ight of appeal to the Appellate Tribunal.
There being no provision like Section 9 of the Foreigners Act regarding
burden of proof in the IMDT Act, the whole complexion of the case will
change in favour of the illegal migrant. This right is not available to any other
person similarly situate against whom an order under the Foreigners Act may F
have been passed, if he is in any other part of India other than the State of
Assam.

45. As mentioned earlier, the influx of Bangladeshi nationals who have
illegally migrated into Assam pose a threat to the integrity and security of
north-eastern region. Their presence has changed the demographic character G
of that region and the local people of Assam have been reduced to a status
• of minority in certain districts. In such circumstances, if the Parliament had
ertacted a legislation exclusively for the State of Assam which was more
stringent than the Foreigners Act, which is applicable to rest of India, and
also in the State of Assam for identification of such persons who migrated H
\-

534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] ·sUPP. l S.C.R.

A from the territory of present Bangladesh between lst January, 1966 to 24th
March, 1971, such a legislation would have passed the test of Article 14 as
the differentiation so made would have had rational nexus with the avowed
policy and objective of the Act. But the mere making of a geographical
classification cannot be sustained where the Act instead of achieving the
B object of the legislation defeats the very purpose for which the legislation has
been made. As discussed earlier, the provisions of the Foreigners Act are far
more effective in identification and deportation of foreigners who have illegally
crossed the international border and have entered India without any authority
of law and have no authority to continue to remain in India. For satisfying
the test of Article 14, the geographical factor alone in making a classification
C is not enough but there must be a nexus with the objects sought to be
achieved. If geographical consideration becomes the sole criteria completely

-
overlooking the other aspect of "rational nexus with the policy and object of
the Act" it would be open to the legislature to apply enactments made by it
to any sub-division or district within the State and leaving others at its sweet
D will. This is not the underlying spirit or the legal principle on which Article
14 is founded. Since the classification made whereby IMDT Act is made
applicable only to the ~tate of Assam has no rational nexus with the policy
and object of the Act, it is clearly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
and is liable to be struck down on this ground also.
I
E 46. Shri Ashok Desai, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also i
urged that the reports of the Governor and also the earlier counter affidavits
filed by Union of India and State of Assam show that the w.hole demographic
pattern of the State of Assam has undergone a change and the local people
of Assam have been reduced to a minority in their own State on account of
large influx of illegal migrants from Bangladesh. According to learned counsel,
F this amounts to violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 29(1) of the
Constitution as the people of Assam have a fundamental right to conserve
their language, script or culture. Undoubtedly, Article 29(1) confers a
fundamental right on all sections of the citizens residing in the territory of
India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of its
G own to conserve the same and any invasion of this right would be ultra vires.
The enforcement of the IMDT Act has no doubt facilitated to a very large
extent the illegal migrants from Bangladesh to co~tinue to reside in Assam,
who on account of their huge number affect the language, script and .culture
of the local people. However, we do not wish to express any concluded
opinion whether on the fact situation the IMDT Act can be thus said to be
H violating Article 29(1) of the Constitution as the necessary factual basis for
SARBANANDA SONOWAL v. U.0.I. [G.P. MATHUR, J.] 535
determination of this question has not been laid in the pleadings. A
47. Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the petitioners irt
Writ Petition No.7 of2001 (Jamiat Ulma-E-Hind and Anr. v. Union of India
& Anr. ), wherein a prayer has been made to issue a direction to Union of India:
that the IMDT Act should be made applicable to whole of India, requested
that he may be heard on the question of vires of the IMDT Act, as the B
decision on the said point will have a serious impact on the writ petition i~
which he is appearing as counsel.· We have; therefore,.-heard Shri Shanti
Bhushan on the limited point regarding the constitutional validity of the
IMDT Act. Learned counsel has submitted that though some of the Articles
in_ Part III of the Constitution dealing with fundamental rights like Article C
19(1)(d) and (e) would not apply to a foreigner, yet he is entitled to the;
protection of Article 21 as the application of the said Article is not confined
to citizens alone. Learned counsel has submitted that in view of the clear
mandate of Article 21 that no person shall be deprived of his life or personai:
liberty except according to procedure established by law, there has to be al
fair procedure for expulsion of foreigners. According to the learned counsel, D
1

the IMDT'2'\ct lays down a fair procedure, namely determination by ajudicia\!
Tribunal of the question of citizenship of a person and his deportation. It has
thus been submitted that the IMDT Act which seeks to achieve this object'
meets the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and thus its validity '
cannot be impugned. The learned Additional Solicitor General and Shri K.K. ! E
Venugopal, during the course of their arguments, have also laid great stress I
on the fact that the IMDT Act has been enacted to give protection to genuine '
Indian citizens and to save their harassment.

It is not possible to accept the submission made. The view taken by this I
Court is that in a criminal trial where a person is prosecuted and punished p 1_

for commission of a crime and may thus be deprived of his life or liberty, it:
is not enough that he is prosecuted in accordance with the procedure '
prescribed by law but the procedure should be such which is just, fair and 1

reasonable. This principle can have no application here for the obvious i
reason that in the matter of identification of a foreigner and his deportation, :
he is not being deprived of his life or personal liberty. The deportation G 1

proceedings are not proceedings for prosecution where a man may be 1

convicted or sentenced. The Foreigners Act and the Foreigners (Tribunals) :
Order, 1964 are applicable to whole of India and even to the State of Assam 1

for identification of foreigners who have entered Assam between 1st January, 1

1966 and 24th March, i 971 in view of the language !JSed in Section 6-A of : H
. I '
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. l S.C.R.

A Citizenship Act. It is, therefore, not open to Union of India or State of Assam
or for that matter anyone to contend that the procedure prescribed in the •
aforesaid enactment is not just, fair and reasonable and thus violative 9f
Article 21 of the Constitution. In our opinion, th~ procedure under the
Foreigners Act and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 is just, fair and
B reasonable and does not offend any constitutional provision.

48. ··we consider it necessary here to briefly notice the.law regarding
deportation of aliens as there appears to be some misconception about it and
it has been argued with some vehemence that aliens also possess several
rights and the procedure for their identification and deportation should be
C detailed and elaborate in order to ensure fairness to them.

49. In Introduction to International Law by J.G. Starke (1st Indian re-
print 1994) in Chapter 12 (page 348), the law on the points has been stated
thus: -

"Most states claim in legal theory to exclude all aliens at will,
D
affirming that such unqualified right is an essential attribute of soverign
government. The courts of Great Britain and the United States have
laid it down that the right to exclude aliens at will is an incident of
territorfal sovereignty. Unless bound by an international treaty to the
contrary, states are not subject to a duty under international law to
E admit aliens or any duty thereunder not to expel them. Nor does
international law impose any duty as to the period of stay of an
admitted alien."

Like the power to refuse admission this is regarded as an incident of the
State's territorial sovereignty. International law does not prohibit the expulsion
F enmasse of aliens. (page 351). Reference has also been made to Article B of
the International Covenant of 1966 on Civil and Political Rights which provides
that an alien lawfully in the territory of a State party to the Covenant may
be expelled only pursuant to a decision reached by law, and except where
compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, is to be allowed to
G submit the reasons against his expulsion and to have his case reviewed by
and to be represented for the purpose before the competent authority. It is
important to note that this Covenant of 1966 would apply provided an alien
is lawfully in India, namely, with valid passport, visa etc. and not to those
who have entered illegally or unlawfully. Similar view has been expressed in ·
Oppenheim's International Law (Ninth Edn. 1992 in paragraphs 400, 401 and
H 413). The author has said that the reception of aliens is a matter of discretion,
SARBANANDA SONOWAL v. U.0.1. [G.P. MATHUR, J.] 537
and every State is by reason of its territorial supremacy, competent to exclude A
aliens from the whole or any part of its territory. In paragraph 413 it is said
that the right of States to expel aliens is generally recognized. It matters not
whether the alien is only on a temporary visit, or has settled down for
professional business or any other purposes on its territory, having established
his domicile there. A belligerent may consider it convenient to expel all hostile:
nationals residing or temporarily staying within its territory; although such a; B
measure may be very harsh on individual aliens, it is generally accepted that.
such expulsion is justifiable. Having regard to Article 13 of the International :
Covenant-on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, an alien lawfully in a State's:
territory may be expelled only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance
~~ c
50. In Rex v. Bottrill, (1947) 1 K.B. 41, it was said that the King under
the Constitution of United Kingdom is under no db ligation to admit into the !
country or to retain there when admitted, any alien. Every alien in the United 1

Kingdom is there only because his presence has been licensed by the King. .
It follows that at common law the King can at will withdraw his license and l D
cause the Executive to expel the alien, whether enemy or friend. For holding
·so reliance was placed on Attorney-Genera/for Canada v. Cain, (1906) AC
542, where Lord Atkinson said: -

"One of the rights possessed by the Supreme power in every state-
is the right to refuse to pennit an alien to enter that state, to annex E
what conditions it pleases to the permission to enter it, and to expel
or deport from the state, at pleasure, even a friendly alien, especially
if it considers his presence in the state opposed to its peace, order,
and good government, or to its sqcial or material interests."

In Chae Chan Ping v. United States, (1930) U.S. 581, the United State ,F
Supreme Court held :

"The po\Ver of exclusion of foreigners being an incident of sovereignty
belonging to the Government of the United States, as a part of those
sovereign powers delegated by the Constitution, the right to its exercise ·
G
at any time when, in the judgment of the Government, the interests '
of the country require it, cannot be granted away or restrained on
behalf of any one. The powers of Government are delegated in trust
to the United States, and are incapable of transfer to any other parties.
They cannot be abandoned or surrendered. Nor can their exercise be
hampered, when needed for the public good, by any considerations B
538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {2005] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A of private interest. The exercise of these pnblic trusts is not the
subject of barter or contract."

This principle was reiterated in Fong Yue Tingv,. United States 149 U.S. 698,
where the court ruled: -

B "The government of each· state has. always the right to compel
foreigners who are found within its territory to go away, by having
them taken to the frontier. This right is based on the fact that, the
foreigner not making part of the nation, his individual reception into
the territory is matter of pure permission, of simple tolerance, and
creates no obligation. The exercise of this right may be subjected,·
c doubtless, to certain· forms by the domestic laws of each country;· but
the right exists none the less, universally ,recognized and put in
force."

D "The order of deportation is not a punishment for crime. It is not a
banishment, in the sense in which that word is. often applied to the
expulsion ofa citizen from his country by way of punishment. It is but
a method of enforcing the retµrn to his own country of an alien who
has not complied with the conditions upon the performance of which .;
·the government of the nation, acting within its corstitutional authority
E and through the proper departments, has determined that his continuing
to reside here shall depend. He has not, therefore, been deprived of
life, liberty or property, without due process of law; and the provisions
of the Constitution, securing the right of trial by jury, and prohibiting
unreasonable searches and seizures, and cruel and unusual
F punishments, have no application."

51. In Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 US 652, it was adjudged
that, although Congress might, if it saw fit, authorize the courts to investigate
and ascertain the facts upon which the alien's right to land was made by the
statutes to depend, yet Congress might entrust the final determination of
G those facts to an executive officer, and that, if it did so, his order was due
process of law and no other tribunal, unless expressly authorized by law to
do so, was at liberty to re-examine the evidence on which he acted, or to
controvert its sufficiency. Thus according to United States Supreme Court the
determination of rights of an alien even by Executive will be in compliance
H of due process of law.
SARBANANDA SONOWAL v. U.0.1. [G.P. MATHUR, J.] 539
. 52. In Louis De Raedt v. Union of India, (1991] 3 SCC 554 the two A
. foreign nationals engaged in missi<mary work had come to India in 1937 and
1948 respectively with proper documents like passport and visa etc. and wer;e
continuously living here but by the order dated 8th July, 1987 their prayer for
further extension of the period of stay was rejected and they were asked to
leave the country by 31st July, 1987. They then challenged the order by filing
a writ petition. This Court held that the power of the Government of India to B
expel foreigners is absolute and unlimited and there is no provision in thb
Constitution fettering its discretion and the executive government ha~
unrestricted right to expel a foreigner. So far as right to be heard is concerned
1
there cannot be any hard and fast rule about the manner in which a person
concerned has to be given an opportunity to place his case. 1 C
53. In State ofArunachal Pradesh v. Khudi Ram Chakma, (1994) Supp
SCC 615, following Louis De Raedt (supra), it was held that the fundamental
right of a foreigner is confined to Article 21 for life and liberty and does not
include the right to reside and stay in this country, as mentioned in Article
19(1)(e), which is applicable only to the citizens of the country. After referring D
to some well-known and authoritative books on International Law it was
observed that the persons who reside in the territories of countries of which\ .
they are not pationals, possess a special stat\,Js under International Law. 1

States reserve the right to expel them from their territory and to refuse to grant
them certain rights which are enjoyed by their own nationals like right to vote,' E
hold public office or to engage in political activities. Aliens may be debarred 1

from joining the civil services or certain profession or from owning some
properties and the State may place them under restrictions in the interest of'
national security or public order. Nevertheless, once lawfully admitted to a,
territory, they are entitled to certain immediate rights necessary to the .
enjoyment of ordinary private life. Thus, the Bangladeshi nationals who have ! F
illegally crossed the border and have trespassed into Assam or are living in 1

other parts of the country have no legal right of any kind to remain in India
and they are liable tQ_ be deported.

54. The learned Additional Solicitor General has also submitted that the
vires of.a special statute seeking to make some provisions or some defined G 1

object cannot be challenged by comparing its provisions with .a general
statute covering the field. In support ,of this proposition he has placed
reliance on In re The Special Courts Bill, (1978) AIR (1979) SC 478 and A.R. '
Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, AIR (1988) SC 1531. In the former case, it was held
that once a classification is upheld by the application of the dual test, ,H
540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A subjection of harsher treatment or disadvantageous procedure loses its
relevance, the reason being that for the purposes of Article 14 unequafs
cannot complain of unequal treatment. In our opinion, the proposition urged
by the learned Additional Solicit9r General has no application to the fact
situation of the present case. The contention of the petitioner is not that
merely because the provisions of the IMDT Act provide many safegµards to
B an alleged illegal migrant in comparison to the Foreigners Act the iMDT Act
is ultra vires. The contention is that as the Statement of Objects and Reasons
show that the influx of foreigners who illegally migrated into India across the
borders of the sensitive Eastern and North-Eastern regions of the country and
have remained in the country, pose a threat to the integrit)t and security of
C the said region and further their continuance in lndia has given rise to serious
problems and also the clandestine manner in which these persons are trying
to pass off as citizens of India has rendered their detection difficult and there
being need for their speedy detection and the interest of general public, a
classification was made on geographical basis whereby the Act was enforced
only in the State of Assam in supersession to the Foreigners Act. But the
D Act so made contains such provisions and prescribes such procedure that
it has become virtually impossible to detect and deport a foreigner which·is
evident from the statistical data furnished by the respondent themselves. The
basis of differentiation has thus no nexus with the object sdught tg be
achieved and, therefore, the classification made for application of IMDT Act
E to tJ:ie State of Assam violates Article 14 and is consequently liable to be
struck down.

55. Shri K.K. Venugopal has submitted that Section 8 of the IMDT Act
is similar to Section 9 of the Citizenship Act and, therefore, the same·
interpretation should be placed upon Section 8. In our opinion it is not
F possible to accept such a contention. Section 9 of the Citizenship Act applies
to a situation where the question is whether an Indian citizen has lost his
citizenship by acquiring the citizenship of a foreign country. Such a question
can be decided only by the Central Government. We are concerned here with
identification and deportation of such Bangladeshi nationals who have illegally
crossed the international border and have taken up residence in Assam. The
G question of loss of Indian citizenship on account of acquisition of citizenship
of another country does not at all arise for consideration here.

56. The learned Additional Solicitor General has submitted that the
present writ petition has been filed by way of public interest litigation and
H seeks to achieve a political purpose. I.t is urged that the petitioner Shri
SARBANANDASONOWAL v. U.0.1. [G.P. MATHUR, J.) 541

Sarbananda Sonowal was earlier an MLA of Assam Gana Parishad party and A
is now a Member of Parliament and what his party could not achieve politically,
he wants to achieve by means of this public interest litigation. lt is urged that
as held in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, (198IJSupp. SCC 87 and some other
-cases that a public interest litigation cannot be entertained where its object
is to attain a political purpose, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. B
Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel for the State of Assam, has in
addition submitted that no fundamental right of the petitioner has, been
violated and, therefore, the present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution
is not maintainable. We are unable to accept the submission made. It is the
foremost duty of the Central Government to protect its borders and prevent
trespass by foreign nationals. Article 51-A(d) of the Constitution says that C
it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to defend the country and render
national service when called upon to do so. If an Act made by legislature has
the disastrous effect of giving shelter and protection to foreign nationals who
have illegally transgressed the international border and are residing in India
and further the Act is unconstitutional, any citizen is entitled to bring it to
the fotice of the Court by filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the D
Constitution. There are any number of instances where such writ petitions
have been entertained by this Court at the instance of citizens who were not
themselves personally aggrieved in the sense that there was no direct invasion
of their own fundamental right. In Dr. D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, AIR
(I 987) SC 579, the petitioner had filed writ petition under Article 32 of the E
Constitution challenging the action of the Governor ofBihar in promulgating
ordinances from time to time under Article 213 of Constitution of India
without getting them replaced by Acts of the Legislature. The Constitution
Bench held that the petitioner has sufficient interest to maintain a petition
under Article 32 even as a member of the public because it is the right of
every citizen to insist that he should be governed by laws made in accordance F
with the Constitution and not law made by the executive in violation of the
constitutional provisions. It was also held that if any particular ordinance was
being challenged by the petitioner he may not have the locus standi to
challenge it simply as a member of the public unless some legal right or
interest of his is violated or threatened by such ordinance, but here what G
petitioner as a member of the public was complaining of is a practice which
is being followed by the State of Bihar of repromulgting the ordinances from
time to time \Vithout their provisions being enacted into Acts of the Legislature.
The Court ruled that the petition had been filed for vindication of public
interest and he must therefore be held to be entitled .to maintain his writ
H·
542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A petitions. In R.K. Garg v. Uniowof India, AIR 1981 SC 2138 the constitutional
.
validity of Special Bearer Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions)
.
Ordinance and --
the Act of 1981 was challenged by Shri R.K. Garg, a senior advocate of
Supreme Court, by filing a writ petition under Article 32 of Constitution, which
was entertained and the validitY of the Act was examined in great detail.
B Recently this Court entertained a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution
at the instance of Prof. Yashpal, former Chairman of University Grants
Commission by. way of Public Interest Litigation and struck down the Act
made by Chhattisgarh Legislature which enabled 112 Private Universities to
be established; having no infrastructure whatsoever within a short span of
two years. (See JT (2005) 2 SC 165)
c 57. To sum up our conclusions, the provisfons of the Illegal Migrants
(Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 are ultra vires the Constitution of
India and are accordingly. struck down. The Illegal Migrants (Determination
by Tribunals) Rules, 1984 are a.l~o ultra vires and are struck down. As a
result, the Tribunals and the Appellate Tribunals constituted under the Illegal
D Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 shall cease to function. The
Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920, the Foreigners Act, 1946, the Immigrants
(Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 and the Passport Act, 1967 shall apply to
the State of Assam. All cases pending before the Tribunals under the Illegal
Migrants (Determination by Tribunals ) Act, 1983 shall stand transferred to
E the Tribunals constituted under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 and
shall be decided in the manner provided in the Foreigners Act, the Rules made
thereunder and the procedure prescribed under the Foreigners (Tribunals)
Order, 1964. In view of the finding that the competent authority and the
Screening Committee had no authority or jurisdiction to reject any proceedings
initiated against any alleged illegal migrant, the orders of-rejection passed by
F such authorities are declared to be void and non est in the eye of law. It will
be open to the authorities of the Central Government or State Government to
initiate fresh proceedings under the Foreigners Act against all such persons
whose cases were not referred to the Tribunals constituted under the Illegal
Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 by the competent authority
G whether on account of the recommendation of the Screening Committee or
any other reason whatsoever. The appeals pending before the Appellate
Tribunals shall be deemed to have abated.

58. In view of the di~cussion made above, the writ petition succeeds
and is allowed with the following directions : ·
H
-------.._
' SARBANANDA SONOWAL v. U.0.1. [Gt MATHUR, J.] 543
(I) The provisions of the Illegal Migrants (Determination. by A
Tribunals) Act, 1983 and the Illegal Migrants (Determination by
Tribunals) Rules, 1984 are declared to be ultra vires the
Constitution of India and are struck down;
(2) The Tribunals and the Appellate Tribunals constituted under. the
Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 shall B
ce~e to function;

(3) All cases pending before the Tribunals under the Illegal Migrants
(Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 shall stand transferred to ·
the Tribunals constituted under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order,
1964 and shall be decided in the manner provided in the Foreigners c
Act, the Rules made. thereunder and the procedure prescribed
under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964.
(4) It will be open to the authorities to initiate fresh proceedings
under the Foreigners Act against all such persons whose cases
were not referred to the Tribunals by the competent authority
.(
D
I .whether on account of the recommendation of the Screening
Committee or any other reason whatsoever.
(5) All appeals pending before the Appellate Tribunal shall be deemed
,,•
to have abated.
'
(6) .The respondents are directed to constitute sufficient number of E
Tribunals under the Foreigners (TribuQals) Order; 1964 to
effectively deal with cases of foreigners, who have illegally come
from Bangladesh or are illegally residing in Assam.· ·

S9. All the Interlocutory Applications are disposed of in terms of the
above order. F
. K.K.T. Petition allowed .