Will follow orders on plea seeking deportation of illegal migrants including Rohingyas: K'taka to SC
New Delhi, Oct 30: The Karnataka government has told the Supreme Court that it would "scrupulously" follow the orders to be passed on a PIL seeking a direction to the Centre and states to "identify, detain and deport" illegal migrants including Bangladeshis and Rohingyas from the country.
A few days ago, the Karnataka government had told the apex court that it has no immediate plan to deport 72 Rohingyas, living in Bengaluru, and had sought dismissal of the PIL field by BJP leader and lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay on the issue.
Vanaja K N , the Under Secretary of the Home Department of Karnataka, has filed the fresh affidavit saying, "I humbly state that the Karnataka state police have not housed Rohingyas in any camp or detention centre within its jurisdiction."
"However, 126 Rohingyas have been identified in Karnataka state... this respondent undertakes that whatever order would be passed by this hon'ble court will be scrupulously adhered and followed in letter and spirit," the affidavit said.
Upadhyay, in his PIL, has sought directions to the Centre and the states to identify, detain and deport all the illegal migrants and infiltrators including Bangladeshis and Rohingyas.
The plea has sought a direction to the Centre and the states to "amend respective laws to make illegal immigration and infiltration a cognizable, non-bailable and con-compoundable offence".
"The large-scale illegal migrants, particularly from Myanmar and Bangladesh, have not only threatened the demographic structure of bordering districts but seriously impaired security and national integration," the plea said.
Upadhyay's plea alleged there was an organised influx of illegal migrants from Myanmar through agents and touts via West Bengal, Tripura, and Guwahati.
"This situation is seriously harming the national security of the country," the plea said.
Earlier, the apex court, on April 8, had made it clear that Rohingyas, who have been detained in Jammu, shall not be deported to Myanmar unless the procedure prescribed for such deportation is followed by the authorities.
The bench had said it is true that rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution are available to all the persons who may or may not be citizens but the right not to be deported, is "ancillary or concomitant" to the right to reside or settle in any part of India.
While Article 14 deals with equality before law, Article 21 deals with protection of life and personal liberty.
The order was passed on an application seeking release of detained Rohingya refugees and also a direction to the Centre not to deport those who have been detained in the sub-jail in Jammu.
The Centre had earlier opposed the plea saying the country cannot be the "capital" for illegal immigrants.
Violent attacks allegedly by Myanmar army have led to an exodus of Rohingya tribals from the western Rakhine state in that country to India and Bangladesh.
Many of them, who had fled to India after the earlier spate of violence, have settled in Jammu, Hyderabad, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Delhi-NCR and Rajasthan.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Disqualification row: SC unhappy over Telangana CM's statement on bye-elections
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed its displeasure over Telangana Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy's statement in the assembly that there would be no bye-elections, and said he was expected to exercise "some degree of restraint".
"Did we commit a mistake by letting him go at that time and not taking an action for contempt?" a bench of Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih asked.
The top court was perhaps referring to a separate matter in which it had last year disapproved of Reddy's comments on the top court granting bail to rival BRS leader K Kavitha in cases linked to the alleged Delhi excise policy scam.
The apex court's observations came during the arguments on the pleas raising the issue of alleged delay by the Telangana Assembly speaker in deciding on petitions seeking disqualification of 10 BRS MLAs who had defected to the Congress.
The bench reserved its verdict in the matter.
During the arguments, the issue over Reddy's recent statement in the assembly cropped up before the bench.
"Mr Singhvi, having experience of earlier occasion, was the chief minister not expected to at least exercise some degree of restraint?" Justice Gavai asked senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, who was appearing for the assembly speaker.
Justice Gavai said the court was not bothered about statements of politicians.
"We exercise self-restraint. We respect the other two wings of the democracy. Same is expected of the other two wings also," he said.
Senior advocate C A Sundaram, representing the petitioner and BRS leader Padi Kaushik Reddy, referred to the transcripts of the chief minister's statement, calling it shocking.
A BRS MLA, the counsel said, had said in the assembly that this should not be raked up as the matter was pending before the apex court but the chief minister still made the statement.
Sundaram quoted the chief minister's statement as saying, "Mr speaker, I am telling on your behalf to everyone present in the assembly that they need not worry about any bye-elections in future. No Bye-elections will come".
Sundaram said when the chief minister made the statement, the speaker did not say anything.
During the hearing, the bench asked what would be the "reasonable period" for a speaker to decide on the disqualification petitions.
It asked whether such applications for disqualification "should be permitted to die its natural death and the Tenth Schedule be thrown in the dustbin?".
The Tenth Schedule of the Constitution deals with provisions on disqualification on the ground of defection.
Sundaram requested the bench to put a time limit for deciding the disqualification petitions, referring to it as an "extraordinary situation".
Reddy had allegedly said in the assembly on March 26 that there would be no bye-elections even if BRS members switched sides.
"If this is said on the floor of the house, your chief minister is making a mockery of the Tenth Schedule," the bench said on April 2.
The apex court had also asked the speaker why he took about 10 months to issue notices on the petitions for the disqualification of BRS MLAs who defected to the Congress.
While one of the pleas in the apex court has challenged the November 2024 order of the Telangana High Court in a matter concerning petitions seeking the disqualification of three BRS MLAs, another petition relates to the remaining seven legislators who defected.
A division bench of the high court in November last year said the Assembly speaker must decide the disqualification petitions against the three MLAs within a "reasonable time".
The division bench's verdict came on the appeals against the September 9, 2024, order of a single judge.
The single judge had directed the secretary of the Telangana Assembly to place the petition seeking the disqualifications before the speaker for fixing a schedule of hearing within four weeks.
On March 4, the apex court sought responses from the Telangana government and others on the pleas, saying a timely decision was the key and there could not be a case of "operation successful but patient is dead".
It had also sought the responses of MLAs Danam Nagender, Venkata Rao Tellam and Kadiyam Srihari in the matter.
