Gauhati High Court Dismisses 35-Year-Old Petition Challenging Illegal Immigrant Declaration
The Gauhati High Court has firmly rejected a petition filed by a man challenging a 1990 order that declared him and six family members as illegal immigrants from Bangladesh. The court cited an unexplained delay of 35 years in approaching the judiciary as the primary reason for dismissal, stating that such a significant lapse cannot be overlooked.
Court's Stance on Delay and Legal Merits
A bench comprising Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Anjan Moni Kalita heard the appeal of Arab Ali, who contended that neither he nor his family members had received any notice of the proceedings before the Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunal (IMDT). The court, however, was not inclined to entertain the petition, emphasizing the following key points:
- Massive Delay: The petition was filed after a huge delay of 35 years, which the court found impossible to ignore or justify.
- Lack of Merit: The court ruled the petition devoid of any merit due to unexplained delay and laches in challenging the tribunal's decision.
- Vague Explanations: The explanations provided for the delay were deemed vague and non-convincing by the bench.
In its order dated January 29, the court clarified that since the tribunal had declared the petitioner and his family as illegal migrants, the authorities are now at liberty to take appropriate legal action against them as per the law.
Background of the Case and Petitioner's Claims
The case originated from an IMDT order passed on May 19, 1990, by the tribunal in Nagaon. The order declared Arab Ali, his wife, and children as illegal immigrants who had entered India on or after March 25, 1971, without valid authority. The petitioner moved the High Court, arguing that the IMDT opinion was passed ex parte without his family's knowledge.
Advocates M U Ahmed and M M Rahman, representing Ali, presented several arguments before the court:
- Lack of Notice: They claimed that neither Ali nor his family members had received any notice of the IMDT proceedings.
- Awareness Post-Arrest: Ali became aware of the case only after his arrest by border police in 2019, following which he was detained at Tezpur Central Jail for over five years.
- Release and Delay Reasons: He was released in 2023 following Supreme Court directions during the COVID-19 pandemic. The counsel cited medical issues, financial hardship, and lack of proper legal advice as reasons for the delay, contending it was neither intentional nor deliberate.
- Remand Request: They sought a remand of the case for fresh adjudication before the Foreigners' Tribunal under the Foreigners Act, 1946.
State's Opposition and Legal Arguments
Advocate P Sarmah and others, appearing for the state government and other respondents including the Centre and Election Commission of India, strongly opposed the plea. The state's arguments included:
- Notice Served: The state maintained that a notice under Section 10 of the IMDT Act, 1983, issued on July 6, 1988, had been duly served on the petitioner's mother, who acknowledged receipt by affixing her left thumb impression.
- Opportunities Granted: The tribunal had granted repeated opportunities over nearly two-and-a-half years for the accused to present their defense.
- Post-Release Inaction: The state submitted that the petitioner remained inactive even after his release in 2023 and failed to offer any convincing explanation for the prolonged delay in challenging the order.
The Gauhati High Court's decision underscores the judiciary's strict stance on procedural delays and the importance of timely legal recourse, particularly in sensitive matters involving immigration and national security.
