Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunal) Act (IMDT) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunal ) (IMDT) Act was an Indian law enacted in 1983 by Indira Gandhi government. It was struck down by the Supreme Court of Indiain 2005. Known as the IMDT Act (1983) it described the procedures to detect illegal immigrants (from Bangladesh) and expel them from Assam. The Act was pushed through mainly on the grounds that it provided special protections against undue harassment to the “minorities” that were affected by the Assam Agitation. It was applicable to state of Assam only whereas in other states, detection of foreigners is done under The Foreigners Act, 1946. The act made it difficult to deport illegal immigrants from Assam. It has been alleged to be one of the main reasons of rapid rise of Muslim population and demographic change in Assam. Salient features The Foreigners Act, 1946 defines a foreigner as a person who is not a citizen of India. Section 9 of the Act states that, where the nationality of a person is not evident as per preceding section 8, the onus of proving whether a person is a foreigner or not, shall lie upon such person. However, under the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunal ) (IMDT) Act, the burden of proving the citizenship or otherwise rested on the accuser and the police, not the accused. This was a major departure from the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946. The accuser must reside within a 3 km radius of the accused, fill out a complaint form (a maximum of ten per accuser is allowed) and pay a fee of ten Rupees. If a suspected illegal migrant is thus successfully accused, he was required by the Act to simply produce a ration card to prove his Indian citizenship. And if a case made it past these requirements, a system of tribunals made up of retired judges would finally decide on deportation based on the facts. The act also provided that if the application is found frivolous or vexatious the Central Government may not accept it. It excluded the migrants who entered India before March 25, 1971 from the illegal-migration accusation. And for post-1971 migrants too, the procedure for deporting were tough. Supreme Courts views The Act was challenged in courts. In 2005 a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India held that the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 and rules has created the biggest hurdle and is the main impediment or barrier in the identification and deportation of illegal migrants and struck down the Act. The court also observed (the conviction rate under the IMDT act) comes to less than half per cent of the cases initiated...(the IMDT Act) is coming to the advantage of such illegal migrants as any proceedings initiated against them almost entirely ends in their favour, enables them to have a document having official sanctity to the effect that they are not illegal migrants. On 9 August 2012, the Supreme Court hearing a public interest litigation petition seeking a direction for deportation of illegal migrants, was told that the Government of India, as a matter of policy, “does not support any kind of illegal migration either into its territory or illegal immigration of its citizens. ”It was also stated that the Government is committed to deporting illegal Bangladeshi migrants, but only lawfully. It asserted that the demand for deleting the names of alleged 41 lakh doubtful voters from the list of 2006 on the basis of religious and linguistic profiling would prima facie be illegal, arbitrary and violative of the secular and democratic credentials of India. The court posted the matter for final hearing on 6 November 2012. Online edition of Indias National Newspaper Thursday, Jul 14, 2005 About Us Contact Us National News: Front Page | National | Tamil Nadu | Andhra Pradesh |Karnataka | Kerala | New Delhi | Other States | International |Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous | Engagements | Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | National IMDT Act is the biggest barrier to deportation, says Supreme Court Legal Correspondent Describes the influx of illegal immigrants as an aggression on Assam ________________________________________ • Large-scale immigration has led to insurgency and social disturbances • Local language and culture being affected • Growth of Assam hampered by migrants ________________________________________ RALLYING AGAINST ILLEGAL MIGRANTS: BJP supporters take out a rally in Guwahati on Wednesday demanding the deportation of all illegal Bangladeshi nationalists from Assam after the Supreme Court struck down the IMDT Act. - PHOTO: RITU RAJ KONWAR NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court held that the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 and rules has created the biggest hurdle and is the main impediment or barrier in the identification and deportation of illegal migrants. A three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice R.C. Lahoti, Justice G.P. Mathur and Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan, which, on Tuesday, struck down the IMDT Act as unconstitutional, observed: 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 significantly in causing serious internal disturbances in the shape of insurgency of alarming proportions. The court, in its 114-page judgment, noted that this aggression had made the life of the people of Assam wholly insecure and the panic generated thereby had created fear psychosis. The Bench said this hampered the growth of Assam though it had vast natural resources. The rest of the country viewed it as a disturbed area and hence there were no investments or employment opportunities, giving rise to insurgency. Justice Mathur, writing the judgment for the Bench, pointed out that the IMDT Act and Rules had been so made that innumerable and insurmountable difficulties were created in identification and deportation of illegal migrants. The Bench noted that though enquiries were initiated in 3,10,759 cases under the IMDT Act, only 10,015 persons were declared illegal migrants and only 1,481 illegal migrants were physically expelled up to April 30, 2000. This, the Bench said, comes to less than half per cent of the cases initiated. On the contrary in West Bengal, where Foreigners Act was applicable, 4,89,046 persons were deported between 1983 and November 1998, which was a lesser period. Thus the IMDT Act is coming to the advantage of such illegal migrants as any proceedings initiated against them almost entirely ends in their favour, enables them to have a document having official sanctity to the effect that they are not illegal migrants. The Bench said the IMDT Act and the Rules clearly negate the constitutional mandate contained in Article 355 of the Constitution, 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. The judges said the impact of such large-scale illegal migrants not only affected Assam but also other north-eastern States as the route to these places passed through Assam. The Bench said the influx of Bangladeshi nationals into Assam posed a threat to the integrity and security of the north-eastern region. Their presence had changed the demographic character of the region and the local people of Assam had been reduced to a status of minority in certain districts. The judges said the enforcement of the IMDT Act had helped the illegal migrants to stay in Assam. The illegal migrants had affected the language, script and culture of the local people. The Bench directed constitution of fresh tribunals under the Foreigner (Tribunals) Order, 1964. What is the Illegal Migrants Act? July 12, 2005 20:35 IST The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down the Illegal Migrants (determination by tribunals) Act, 1983. Rediff presents you a primer on what the act means, why it was brought in, and what the Supreme Court order will mean. What is the IMDT Act, 1983? On October 15, 1983, the Government of India [ Images ] passed an Ordinance to set up tribunals for determination of the question whether a person is or is not an illegal migrant. On December 12, 1983, IMDT Act was introduced and passed in Parliament. Where is the act applicable? Only in the state of Assam. In other states, detection of foreigners is done under the Foreigners Act, 1946. Ironically, there was no member in the Lok Sabha from Assams Brahmaputra Valley when the act was passed, since elections could not be held in the state in 1980. What is the difference between the IMDT Act and Foreigners Act? Under the IMDT Act, the onus of proving ones nationality or otherwise lies on the complainant whereas under the Foreigners Act, the onus is on the accused. What did the act set out to do? According to this act an illegal migrant is a person who: (i) entered India on or after March 25, 1971. (ii) was a foreigner (iii) entered India without being in possession of a valid passport or other travel documents or any other legal authority. Clauses 4 and 9 of the IMDT Act said those who came before March 25, 1971 would not come under the purview of the act as the issue of such cases has been left for negotiations. But even in the case of post-1971 migrants the procedures were deliberately kept cumbersome. For instance, the Act provided for two individuals living within a radius of 3 km of a suspected illegal migrant to approach an IMDT Tribunal, deposit a sum Rs 25 and then file a complaint. (The three km restriction was subsequently modified and now the complainant could be from the same police station limits as the accused, while the deposit sum was reduced to Rs 10). But the most contentious provision of the act was the condition that the onus of proving the citizenship credentials of a person in question lies with the complainant and the police, not on the accused. Under the Foreigners Act prevailing in the rest of the country, the onus is understandably on the accused. To cap it all, the act also provided that if the application is found frivolous or vexatious the Central Government may not accept it. In short, the country had two anti-immigration acts. By scrapping the IMDT Act, the Supreme Court has removed the anomaly. Chronology of the acts journey towards repeal. 1992: Asom Gana Parishads Mangaldoi convention resolves to demand repeal of IMDT Act. Sept 19, 1992: Pachu Gopal Baruah and others challenge validity of IMDT Act in the Guwahati high court. 1998: Tripartite discussion between AASU, Government of Assam and Government of India results in a consensus on repeal of IMDT Act in the greater interest of the people of Assam. 1998: All India Lawyers Forum for Civil Liberties files petition in Supreme Court for repeal of IMDT Act. Sept 1, 1999: Government of Assam files affidavit for the first time in Supreme Court supporting repeal of IMDT Act. March 8, 2000: ID Swamy, Union Minister of State for Home tells Parliament: Government is of the view that the IMDT Act in its application in the state of Assam alone is discriminatory. A proposal to repeal the act is under consideration of the government. April 2000: Sarbananda Sonowal, president of AASU challenges the validity of IMDT Act in Supreme Court. Sept 2000: Law Commissions 175th report recommends repeal of IMDT Act. June 2001: Assam government withdraws and changes affidavit in Supreme Court after Congress comes to power. Says the act should stay. May 6, 2003: Union cabinet under Vajpayee decides to introduce Bill to repeal IMDT Act. May 9, 2003: Government introduces Bill to repeal of IMDT Act in Parliament. August 2003: The repeal Bill is referred to the Select Committee Parliament. August to December 2003: Discussions in the select committee go on. Parliament dissolved. Repeal Bill falls through. July 12, 2005: Supreme Court strikes down the act. G Vinayak in Guwahati
Posted on: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 14:45:54 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015