SARBANANDA SONOWAL versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 472 · Decided: 12-07-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SARBANANDA SONOWAL 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
JULY I 2, 2005 
I 
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., G .P. MA THUR AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.] 
Jllegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1_983: 
C 
Jllegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Rules, 1984: 
Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 14 and 355: 
Act and Rules made applicable only to the State of Assam with 
overriding effect over Foreigners Act-For the purpose of effective delection 
D . and deportation of il!egal migrants-Jn the rest of the Country Foreigners 
Act and Rules thereunder applicable-Constitutional validity pf the Act and 
the Rules challenged-Held: the Act and the Rules are ultra vires the 
Constitution-Procedure under Foreigners Act was far more effective in 
detection and deportation of illegal migrants than the impugned Act-Rather 
E it is so made as to give advantage to the illegal migrants and not for 
achieving the real objective of the enactment-The provisions negate the 
constitutional mandate under Article 355-Applicability of the Act to the 
State of Assam alone, having no rational nexus with the policy and object 
of the Act, is violative of Article 14-The Act has stripped Central Government 
of its power to remove illegal migrants provided under Foreigners Act, 
F Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, Passport (Entry into India) Ac/-
Tribunals constituted under the Act will cease to function and the cases 
pending before it would be transferred to Tribunals constituted under 
Foreigners Act-Passport (entry Into India) Act, 1920-Foreigners Act, 
1946-Foreigners (Tribunals) Orders, 1964-Immigrants (Expulsion from 
G Assam) Act, 1950-Passport Act, 1967-Citizenship Act, 1955-Section 6A-
Evidence Act, 1872-Section 106. 
Words and Phrases: 
'Aggression '-Meaning of in the context of Constitution of India. 
H 
472 
SARBANANDA SONOWAL v. U.0.1. 
473 
Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 and Illegal A 
Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Rules, 1984 were made applicable to 
the State of Assam with the professed aim of making detection and deportation 
of illegal migrants residing in the State of Assam. Writ Petition u/A 32 of 
the Constitution of India was filed by way of Public Interest Litigation seeking 
declaration of certain provisions of the Act as ultra vires the Constitution of B 
India and declaration of Rules, as ultra vires the Constitution and also u/s 28 
of the Act and also sought declaration that Foreigners Act, 1946 and Rules 
made thereunder shall apply to the State of Assam. 
Allowing the Petition, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The provisions of the Illegal Migrants (Determination by C 
Tribunals) Act, 1983 (IMDT Act) are ultra vires the Constitution of India. 
The Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Rules, 1984 are also ultra 
vires and are struck down. (542-C; 543-A) 
1.2. The procedure under the Foreigners Act and also under the D 
Fortigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 is far more effective in identification and 
deportation of foreigners as compared to the procedure under the IMDT Act 
and the Rules made thereunder. There being no corresponding provision like 
Section 9 of the Foreigners Act which places the burden of proof upon the 
person concerned who claims to be an Indian citizen, which is absolutely 
essential in relation to the nature of inquiry being conducted regarding E 
determination ofa person's citizenship (where the facts on the basis of which 
an opinion is to be formed and a decision is taken are entirely within the 
knowledge of the said person) has made the task of the law enforcement 
agencies of the State not only difficult but virtually impossible. The IMDT 
Act has been so enacted and the Rules thereunder have been so made that F 
innumerable .and unsurmountable difficulties are created in the matter of 
identification and deportation of illegal migrants. The application of the IMDT 
Act and the Rules made thereunder in the State of Assam has created the 
biggest hurdle and is the main impediment or barrier in identification and 
deportation of illegal migrants. On the contrary, it is coming to the advantage 
of such illegal migrants as any proceedings initiated against them under the G 
said provision which almost entirely ends in their favour, enables them to have 
a ~ocument having official sanctity to the effect that t~y are not mega\ 
migrants. (529-A-F) 
· 
1.3. There is good and sound reason for placing the burden of proof 
upon the person concerned who asserts to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.