Top
Top Stories

Tablighi Jamaat: SC Asks State Of Bihar To File Reply On Consolidation Of Trial

Sanya Talwar
25 Aug 2020 6:02 AM GMT
Tablighi Jamaat: SC Asks State Of Bihar To File Reply On Consolidation Of Trial
x
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the State of Bihar to file its response on the issue of consolidation of ongoing trial against Tablighi Jamaat members from Patna to Delhi.

A bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari & Sanjiv Khanna asked Advocate Shivam Singh appearing for State of Bihar to file his response on this aspect and listed the matter on August 30.

Senior Advocate Maneka Guruswamy appeared for petitioners & stated that trials  against a few Foreigners were going on in Patna & sought their consolidation in Delhi on Humanitarian grounds.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for Centre stated to consolidate all trials would come with its own logistical issues. "In Delhi, the cases were spread across 4-5 different Magistrates. If in more than 1 cities, there will be logistical issues" said Mehta.

On August 6, the centre had informed Supreme Court that "look out" notices issued against foreign nationals for their alleged involvement in Tablighi Jamaat activities at Delhi's Nizammuddin Markaz have been withdrawn.

Upon being asked about the status of trials, Mehta had then informed the Court that 10 out of the 34 petitioners had chosen to contest the criminal cases against them instead of opting for a plea bargain.

The law officer had further stated that these trials were before different Courts in Delhi and suggested that they may be brought before one Court to be disposed of expeditiously.

Background

On April 2, the Press Information Bureau (PIB) communicated the Government's decision to blacklist as many as 960 foreigners from 35 countries who were present in India.

At the same time, orders were issued to Director Generals of Police (DGPs) of all States and Union Territories as well as the Commissioner of Delhi Police (CP) to register FIRs against such foreign nationals.

Plea By Foreign Nationals:

Contending that the decision has been taken unilaterally and arbitrarily, the foreign nationals urged the Top Court to declare the decision as unconstitutional and void.

Their plea emphasised that a decision of en masse blacklisting without issuing notice or providing an opportunity of being heard is in blatant violation of not only principles of natural justice, but also, of the Right to Life under Article 21.

The petitioners, all of whom have been blacklisted, submit that not only has the sudden decision led to FIRs being registered against them but has also resulted in them having to forfeit their passports to the State Administration. This, they contend, is a complete deprivation of personal liberty, without following procedure established under law.

One of the petitioners in the seventh month of her pregnancy was quarantined in March and, after being released in May, continues to be in a facility with restricted movement, which denies her the opportunity to go home and give birth in comfortable surroundings with dignity and security, the plea states.

In furtherance of this, it is pointed out that the decision is based on the presumption of involvement in 'tablighi activities', but nowhere is it defined how these activities were prohibited or what led to the violation of conditions of validly granted visas.

Referring to the "General Policy Guidelines relating to Indian Visa", as made available by MHA, it is pointed out that there is no restriction on foreigners visiting religious places or attending normal religious activities.

Pointing out that constitutional rights against preventive detention extend to foreign nationals as well, it is urged that Article 21 of the Constitution uses the word 'person' and not 'citizen' to protect a foreigner's personal liberty, which includes free movement across the country.

Centre's Stand:

The Centre has stated in reply to the plea that there existed "no fundamental right on the part of a foreigner to obtain a visa or to continue a cancelled or rescinded visa".

"It is submitted that grant of a visa not an enforceable right let alone a fundamental right and visa is a privilege that any country grants to a foreigner. The said visa is always subject to unilaterally imposed restrictions and remains terminable unilaterally in case of a brach. It is submitted that no right of hearing can be read in to any purported right on part of the Petitioners under Article 21 and the right to life and liberty under Article 21 is always subject to the procedure established by law. It is submitted that in such matters, the procedure established by law does not specifically provide for a right of hearing as the same does not regulate any rights of an individual vis-a-vis the State rather is merely a unilateral grant of a privilege" - Centre to SC

Highlighting the specific nature of the breach committed by the present Petitioners and the reasons for the action taken by the Centre, the Central Government stated that the Petitioners had indulged in activities in the nature of "Tabligh activities" which, are not permitted on Tourist Visas and are liable for legal action against them.

It was pointed out that apart from visa violations, the activities of petitioners in the nature of Tabligh activities in question have endangered many lives in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and therefore are liable to legal action.

With regard to invocation of Article 32 for their benefit, the Centre states that no "illegal immigrant" can crave the leave of the Top Court to question the decision taken by a statutory scheme.

Further, the Centre clarified that 227 members left India before issuance of Black Listing/look out circulars and that no member has been deported so far post that due to pendency of criminal proceedings against them.

Next Story