Trial Court's Order To Deport Convict 'As Per Rules' Doesn't Compel Deportation; Authorities To Act As Per Law: Allahabad HC

The Bench of Justice Anil Kumar-X observed that the direction to proceed "in accordance with rules" implies that the competent authorities are left to act as per the applicable law and this doesn't mean that the convict was being compelled by the court to be deported.

Briefly put, one Rashida Begum (revisionist) was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. 1), Maharajganj, for the offence under Section 14-A Foreigners Act, 1946. She was sentenced to two years of imprisonment.

The trial court included a specific direction in paragraph 34 of its judgment regarding her repatriation. The said paragraph read thus:

"34—आदेश की प्रति पुलिस अधीक्षक, महराजगंज को इस निर्देश के साथ प्रेषित हो कि जैसेही अभियुक्ता की दण्ड की अवधि पूरी हो जाय, उसे नियमानुसार उसके देश बर्मा (म्यांमार) प्रत्यर्पित करने की कार्यवाही करना सुनिश्चित करे। अभियुक्ता के कब्जे से बरामद आधार कार्ड, यूएनएचसीआर कार्ड व अन्य वस्तुएं जिनका अपराध से कोई सम्बन्ध नहीं है, उसे वापस दे दिया जाय। निर्णय की एक प्रति अभियुक्ता को तत्काल निःशुल्क उपलब्ध करायी जाय।" [English Translation : A copy of this order be forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Maharajganj, with the direction that as soon as the period of sentence of the accused is completed, necessary proceedings be ensured, in accordance with rules, to repatriate her to her country, Burma (Myanmar). The Aadhaar card, UNHCR card and other articles recovered from the possession of the accused, which have no connection with the offence, shall be returned to her. One copy of the judgment be made available to the accused immediately, free of cost.]

She moved the HC, challenging this very direction of the Trial Court, arguing that it lacked the jurisdiction to issue such a direction.

It was contended that the revisionist holds valid identity documents that establish her status as an Indian citizen. Therefore, the direction to deport her to Myanmar upon completion of her sentence was legally unsustainable.

Opposing the plea, the Additional Government Advocate and counsel for the Union of India submitted that there was no illegality in the impugned judgment.

It was submitted that the trial court had not issued a specific or mandatory direction but had merely observed that deportation should happen as per the rules.

Justice Anil Kumar-X referred to the specific wording used by the trial court in the impugned paragraph. He noted that the trial court had not issued a mandatory direction requiring the authorities to deport the revisionist to Myanmar.

The Bench reasoned that the inclusion of the phrase "proceed in accordance with rules" itself demonstrates that the court did not intend to "compel the revisionist's deportation", but rather "left it to the competent authorities to act in accordance with applicable law".

Thus, finding no merit in the challenge, the High Court dismissed the criminal revision.

Case title - Rashida Begum vs. State of UP

Citation :

Click Here To Read/Download Order