news details |
|
|
| Rohingya lawyers oppose invocation of Passport Act of 1920 | | Deporting illegal immigrants from Jammu | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Mar 20: The Supreme Court of India on Monday again heard the Rohingya case and declared April 9 the next date of hearing. In the apex court, disturbing development took place. The Rohingyas' lawyer Prashant Bhushan opposed the invocation of Passport Act of 1920 and sought the Supreme Court's support to his suggestion that more Rohingyas should be allowed to enter India from Myanmar and the Rohingyas already illegally settled in Jammu and other parts of India be not deported.
Pitching for Rohingyas, Prashant Bhushan contended: "The affidavit submitted by the Union Home Ministry had stated that, as per the Passport Act of 1920, every foreigner entering India must be in possession of a valid national passport or any other internationally recognized travel document establishing his/her nationality and identity and bearing - (a) his/her photograph' and (b) a valid visa for India granted by an authorized Indian representative abroad". Opposing the Act, Prashant said: "This effectively meant that the Rohingya who did not have visa were being pushed back. Obviously the Rohingya won't have visa…There is a genocide against them and they are fleeing".
The stand taken by the Rohingya lawyers was contested by the Government lawyer, Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. He, in fact, accused the Rohingyas' lawyer of helping foreign nationals to change the nation's demography and undermining national security. "The Way in which various PILs are filed…Court will have to go into what is the genesis of these, who wants demographic change, who wants destabilization, who wants to harm internal security," Tushar Mehta told a bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud.
Stating that diplomatic efforts were on to resolve the issue of Rohingya refugees, the Centre on Monday strongly opposed in Supreme Court PILs filed on the subject and urged the court to leave the matter to the executive.
The court was hearing a petition filed by two Rohingya intruders, presently settled in Jammu, and a batch of PILs on the issue. The petitioners have claimed that medical and educational facilities were being denied to Rohingya living in the camps. The Centre denied this, following which the court refused to pass any interim order. However, acting on another plea, the court asked the Centre and states to file a "comprehensive report" on living conditions of Rohingya refugees in camps in Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan and Jammu in two weeks. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
