Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

They also pleaded for repeal of the IMDT Act.

(iv) Members a1so suggested harmonisation between the Passports Act and the Foreigners Act. Both the suggestions were picked up by the Home Secretary who agreed that there was a need to have a ho1ist1c view of the Foreigners Act in re1ation to the Citizenship Act and Passports Act and for the enactment of a comprehensive 1egis1ation.

11.3 The Committee cou1d not take up the B111 for further consideration_and formu1ate its recommendations as it become defunct on 26th Apri1, 1999 on account of the dissc1ution of 12th Lok Sabha.

13. Ihg scheme of amendments proposed by the Law gommission 13.1 The Law Commission has considered the views expressed by the Ministry of Home Affairs, recommendations of the Estimates Committee of the Parliament and Conferences of Chief Ministers and Chief secretaries, Report of the Governor of Assam on Illegal Immigration. the pleadings of the parties in the public interest litigation pending in the Supreme Court (including the Status Reports filed by the Union of India and the State of west Bengal therein), views of the states and Union Territory administrations regarding their experience in implementation of the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and all the other relevant material referred to hereinbefore. The Law Commission had to take a decision with respect to the shape of proposals to be framed by it. one idea was to go in for a comprehensive Act incorporating' the features of the several existing Acts and of the Orders/Rules made thereunder. In short, the idea was to codify the entire law concerning the foreigners, which is now scattered in several enactments and Orders made thereunder, into one enactment. The other idea was to introduce provisions in the Foreigners Act effective enough to meet the main problem faced by this country today, namely," illegal migration without interfering with the existing legal framework. on a consideration of all the pros and cons, the Commission has chosen to adopt the second alternative. The Foreigners Act was enacted in 1946. A large number of Orders (in exercise of the order-making power conferred by section 3 of the Act) have been issued from time to time, regulating various aspects concerning foreigners. Besides the Foreigners Act, there are two other Acts, namely, the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 and the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 (IMDT Act), the former deals with expulsion of migrants from Assam and the latter exclusively deals with determination and deportation of illegal immigrants. There is the Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939, the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 and the Passports Act, 1967. codifying the provisions of all these Acts and of the orders made thereunder would take a long time and there is always the problem of new provisions creating room for fresh litigation. The better course, we thought, was to leave the existing mechanism unaffected except insofar as it is inconsistent with the provisions now proposed by way of this Amendment Bill. Accordingly, the Commission has suggested insertion of certain definitions in section 2 and the insertion of new sections 7(3) to 7(U) in the Foreigners Act, 1946. These provisions shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary in other enactments in force. we have defined the expression "illegal entrant", created a new category of officers called Immigration Officers with a chief Immigration officer at the head and iaid down their powers, duties and functions. we have also specified that certain classes of persons are not to be admitted into India even if they are holding a visa or other vaiid document in that behaif. The function of determining whether a person is an i11ega1 entrant has been entrusted to the immigration officers. Their orders are made subject to an appeai to be heard and decided by an Immigration Tribune1. to be manned by a person who is or has been a district judge or an additionai district judge. The immigration officers and the immigration tribunais shaii decide the matters according to the principles of naturai justice which necessarily means. after making such inquiry as may be ca11ed for in a given case. we have a1so provided for facilitation centres for detaining the foreigners pending the determination of their status and pending their deportation. so far as the offences under the Act are concerned, they are, of course, to be tried by Immigration Court. Immigration court is a court of District and Sessions Judge to be specified by the appropriate government in that behalf, in each district.

It aiso foiiows from the above provisions that if a person who is not a citizen of India according to the provisions of the Constitution or the Citizenship Act, has entered the territories of India (except the territories inciuded in "Assam"), he shaii not be treated as a citizen of India, irrespective of the iength of his stay in India.

The IMDT Act, 1983 is concerned oniy with a iimited ciass of persons, i.e., "foreigners who migrated into of the eastern and India across the borders north-eastern regions of the country on and after the 25th day of March 1971." Such persons were sought to be identified and deported from India. This Act does not purport to nor can it be construed as conferring citizenship upon persons who have entered India before 25.3.1971. This Act is not indeed concerned with conferment of citizenship.

H

(vii) In order to speediiy try an accused person aiieged to have committed offence or offences under the Act, we recommend that sessions court of a district be designated as Immigration Court which may take cognizance of the compiaints against the offenders. some of new offences are proposed to be added to curb the menace of iiiegai migration.

(viii) we have aiso made provisions for transfer of cases now pending before the tribunais created under the IMDT Act, 1983 and of the cases pertaining to offences under the Foreigners Act pending in criminal Courts, to the appropriate authorities/Tribunal/Court.