In Re Section 6a Of The Citizenship Act 1955 vs. Union Of India Ministry Of Home Affairs Secretary
AI Summary
In a significant procedural order concerning the sensitive issue of border infiltration and the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam, the Supreme Court directed the formation of a high-level committee comprising the Chief Secretary of Assam and the Secretary (Border Management) of the Union Home Ministry. This committee is tasked with devising an action plan to address inter-governmental coordination challenges and accelerate the NRC process, with a detailed report expected by the next hearing.
Case Identifiers
Petitioner's Counsel
Respondent's Counsel
Advocates on Record
eCourtsIndia AITM
Brief Facts Summary
The Supreme Court is currently hearing multiple writ petitions concerning border infiltration and the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam. Following reports and affidavits from a Court-appointed Commissioner, the Union, and the State, the Court noted a lack of coordination and directed the formation of a high-level committee to formulate an action plan for these issues. The Court also emphasized the expedited completion of the NRC.
Timeline of Events
Supreme Court appointed Shri Upamanyu Hazarika as the Court's Commissioner.
Previous order of the Supreme Court, pursuant to which a supplementary report was submitted.
Additional affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Assam.
Affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India.
Supplementary Report submitted by Shri Upamanyu Hazarika, learned Senior Advocate.
Current petitions called on for hearing; Court passed the order.
Next date of hearing specified by the Court.
Key Factual Findings
There is a lack of coordination between the Union of India and the State Government insofar as border infiltration is concerned.
Source: Current Court Finding
Primary Legal Issues
Secondary Legal Issues
Statutes Applied
Petitioner's Arguments
While not explicitly detailed in this procedural order, the petitioners' arguments generally center on the imperative need for strict measures against illegal immigration and the expeditious, accurate finalization of the National Register of Citizens in Assam.
Respondent's Arguments
The respondent sides (Union and State) implicitly present challenges related to coordination, resource allocation, and the scale of the task in their affidavits, which the Court perused and cited as indicating a 'lack of coordination'.
Court's Reasoning
The Court's decision to constitute a high-level committee stems from an observed 'lack of coordination between the Union of India and the State Government' in managing border infiltration. The bench believes a dedicated committee of high-ranking officers is essential to 'iron out all differences' and develop a practical 'action plan with estimated time limit of performance' for both border management and NRC preparation. The emphasis is on proactive problem-solving and ensuring the timely completion of crucial national tasks under judicial oversight.
- Emphasis on effective governance and administrative efficiency
- Active judicial oversight in matters of national importance
- Focus on practical and time-bound implementation of policy
- Promoting inter-governmental cooperation
Impugned Orders
Specific Directions
- 1.Court perused Supplementary Report dated 4th November, 2015 by Shri Upamanyu Hazarika, Senior Advocate, appointed as Court's Commissioner via order dated 13th May, 2015.
- 2.Court perused affidavit by Union of India dated 3rd November, 2015 and additional affidavit by State of Assam dated 30th October, 2015.
- 3.A Committee consisting of the Chief Secretary of the State of Assam and the Secretary (Border Management), Ministry of Home, Government of India shall be constituted to resolve differences and address border infiltration issues.
- 4.The Committee is expected to chalk out an action plan with estimated time limits for subject matters in the Supplementary Report and affidavits.
- 5.A preliminary meeting of the Committee should take place as soon as possible.
- 6.The Court is to be informed of the Committee's progress on the next hearing date, 1st December, 2015.
- 7.Regarding NRC preparation, appropriate directions will be passed on the next hearing date.
- 8.State Government is expected to provide necessary manpower to complete the NRC task at the earliest.
- 9.Shri Upamanyu Hazarika's services as Court's Commissioner are no longer required.
- 10.The Chief Justice of India is requested to make the Bench available for the whole day on 1st December, 2015 for hearing these issues.
Precedential Assessment
Non-Binding (Procedural)
This order is procedural, setting up a mechanism for implementation and monitoring, rather than laying down new legal principles or interpreting statutes. However, it demonstrates the Supreme Court's active monitoring role in high-stakes public interest litigations.
Tips for Legal Practice
Legal Tags
Disclaimer: eCourtsIndia (ECI) is not a lawyer and this analysis is generated by ECI AI, it might make mistakes. This is not a legal advice. Please consult with a qualified legal professional for matters requiring legal expertise.
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Case Registered
Listed On:
3 Jul 2009
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 562/2012
ASSAM SANMILITA MAHASANGHA & ORS. PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) [WITH APPLN.(S) FOR DIRECTIONS AND IMPLEADMENT AS PARTY RESPONDENT AND STAY AND OFFICE REPORT] WITH W.P.(C) NO. 876/2014 (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR STAY AND OFFICE REPORT) W.P.(C) NO. 274/2009 (WITH OFFICE REPORT) W.P.(C) NO. 311/2015 (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR SEEKING LEAVE TO FILE WRITTEN ARGUMENTS AND OFFICE REPORT) W.P.(C) NO. 450/2015 (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR DIRECTIONS) W.P.(C) NO. 449/2015 (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR DIRECTIONS AND OFFICE REPORT) Date : 05/11/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Petitioner(s) WP(C) 562/12 Mr. Manish Goswami, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR WP(C) 876/14, 311/15 & rr in WP(C) 562/12 Mr. Somiran Sharma, AOR WP(C) 274/09 Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by WP(C) 450/15, 449/15 Vinod Lakhina Date: 2015.11.07 Mr. Partha Sil, AOR 12:20:58 IST Reason: Mr. Tavish B. Prasad, Adv.
Page No.1 of 7
For Respondent(s) Mr. Anjani Kumar Mishra, AOR Mr. Avijit Bhattacharjee, AOR Ms. Upma Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR Mr. Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, AOR Ms. Kanishka Prasad, Adv.
| State of Tripura | Mr. Gopal Singh, AOR<br>Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv.<br>Ms. Varsha Poddar, Adv. | |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Mohan Pandey, AOR | ||
| Election Comm. | Mr. Mohit D. Ram, AOR<br>Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Adv. | |
| State of UP | Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Adv.<br>Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, AOR | |
| Mr. Shadan Farasat, AOR | ||
| Mr. Shakil Ahmed Syed, AOR | ||
| Mr. Shibashish Misra, AOR | ||
| Mr. Shreekant N. Terdal, AOR | ||
| Mr. Milan Laskar, Adv.<br>Mr. Syed Mehdi Imam, AOR | ||
| Mr.<br>Ms.<br>Mr.<br>Mr.<br>Mr. | Prateek Jalan, Adv.<br>Malvika Trivedi, Adv.<br>Rahul Kriplani, Adv.<br>Ankit Yadav, Adv.<br>T. Mahipal, AOR | |
| State of Assam | Mr.<br>Ms.<br>Mr.<br>Mr.<br>Ms.<br>For | Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv.<br>Krishna Sarma,AAG<br>Avijit Roy, Adv.<br>Navnit Kumar, Adv.<br>Kankana Arandhara, Adv.<br>M/s Corporate Law Group, AOR |
| State of West Bengal | Page No.2 of 7<br>Mr. Soumitra G. Chaudhuri, Adv.<br>Mr. Parijat Sinha, Adv.<br>Mr. Somnath Banerjee, Adv. |
|---|---|
| Gauhati HC | Ms. Sneha Kalita, AOR<br>Mr.<br>P.S. Patwalia, ASG<br>Mr.<br>Tushar Bakshi, Adv.<br>Mr.<br>Ritesh Kumar, Adv.<br>Mr.<br>R. M. Bajaj, Adv.<br>Ms.<br>Rashmi Malhotra, Adv.<br>Ms.<br>Sushma Suri, AOR<br>Mr. Anip Sachthey, AOR |
| Mr. B. Balaji, AOR<br>Mr. C.M. Sundaram Iyer, Adv. | |
| State of Chhattisgarh | Mr. C.D. Singh, AOR<br>Mr. Darpan Bhuyan, Adv. |
| State of M.P. | Mr.<br>Arvind Verma, Sr. Adv.<br>Mr.<br>C.D. Singh, AOR.<br>Mr.<br>Darpan Bhuyan, Adv.<br>Mr.<br>Udit Arora, Adv. |
| Mr.<br>A.K. Sanghi, Sr. Adv.<br>Mr.<br>M.P. Gupta, Adv.<br>Ms.<br>Sunita Gautam, Adv. |
| Mr.<br>D.S. Mahra, AOR | |
|---|---|
| State of Punjab | Mr. S.K. Pabbi, AAG<br>Mr. Ajay K. Singh, Adv.<br>Mr. Kuldip Singh, AOR |
| Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR | |
| State of Goa | Mr.<br>Siddharth Bhatnagar, Adv.<br>Mr.<br>Sidharth Mohan, Adv.<br>Ms.<br>Garima Tiwari, Adv.<br>Mr.<br>Nirnimesh Dubey, AOR |
| Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR | |
| State of Sikkim | Page No.3 of 7<br>Ms.<br>Aruna Mathur, Adv. |
| Mr.<br>Avneesh Arputham, Adv.<br>Mr.<br>Yusuf Khan, Adv. | |
| Ms.<br>Anuradha Arputham, Adv. | |
| For<br>M/s Arputham Aruna & Co., AOR | |
| UT of A & N Admn. | Mr. K.V. Jagdishvaran, Adv.<br>Ms. G. Indira, AOR |
| Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR | |
| Ms. Jesal Wahi, Adv.<br>Ms. Puja Singh, Adv. | |
| State of Uttarakhand | Mr. Ashutosh Kr. Sharma, Adv. |
| Ms. Rachana Srivastava, AOR | |
| State of Rajasthan | Mr.<br>S.S. Shamshery, Adv. |
| Mr.<br>Amit Sharma, Adv.<br>Ms.<br>S.Spandana Reddy, Adv. | |
| Ms.<br>Ruchi Kohli, AOR | |
| Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, AOR | |
| Mr. G.S. Chatterjee, AOR | |
| Mr.<br>Syed Ali Ahmad, Adv. | |
| Mr.<br>Syed Tanweer Ahmad, Adv.<br>Mr.<br>Sumanta S. Bandyopadhyay, Adv. | |
| Mr.<br>Mohan Pandey, AOR | |
| State of Nagaland | Mrs. K. Enatoli Sema, Adv. |
| Mr. Edward Belho, Adv.<br>Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. | |
| Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, AOR | |
| State of Jharkhand | Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, AOR<br>Mr. Mohd. Waquas, Adv. |
| State of Karnataka | Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, AOR<br>Mr. Lagnesh Mishra, Adv. |
| Mr. Parikshit Angadi, Adv. | |
| Ms. Liz Mathew, AOR | |
| Mr. M.F. Philip, Adv. | |
| Mr. Snehasish Mukherjee, AOR | ||
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Ashim Chamuah, Adv. | ||
| State of Manipur | Mr.<br>Mr.<br>Mr.<br>Mr. | Sapam Biswajit Meitei, Adv.<br>Z.H. Isaac Haiding, Adv.<br>S. Vijayanand Sharma, Adv.<br>Ashok Kumar Singh, Adv. |
| Mr. Ananga Bhattacharyya, AOR<br>Mr. Mukund P., Adv. | ||
| State of Bihar | Mr. Rudreshwar Singh, Adv.<br>Mr. Gautam Singh, Adv. |
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
We have perused the Supplementary Report dated 4th November, 2015 submitted by Shri Upamanyu Hazarika, learned Senior Advocate, pursuant to the order of this Court dated 14th July, 2015, whom we had appointed as the Court's Commissioner vide order dated 13th May, 2015. We have also perused the affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India dated 3rd November, 2015 and the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Assam dated 30th October, 2015. After perusing the said Supplementary Report dated 4 th November, 2015 and the said two affidavits dated 3 rd November, 2015 and 30th October, 2015, we put it to Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the Union of India and to Shri Jaideep Gupta, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the State of
Page No.5 of 7 Assam that in view of the lack of coordination between the Union of India and the State Government it may perhaps be better to have a Committee consisting of personnel from both the Union of India and the State Government which could iron out all differences and move ahead insofar as border infiltration is concerned. After having given our anxious consideration to this, we feel it would be best if the said Committee were to be constituted consisting of the Chief Secretary of the State of Assam and the Secretary
(Border Management), Ministry of Home, Government of India. We expect that these two high ranking officers would do the needful by chalking out an action plan with estimated time limit of performance dealing with each of the subject matters mentioned in the Supplementary Report and the affidavit of the Union of India and the State of Assam. We expect that a preliminary meeting should take place as soon as is possible in order to chalk out how exactly the Committee intends to proceed in the matter. We would like to be informed on the next date of hearing which is fixed on 1st December, 2015 by which date we expect that the Committee will have sat at least once and deliberated over how exactly they are going to proceed in the matter.
Insofar as the preparation of NRC is concerned, we
Page No.6 of 7 have heard Mr. Prateek Hajela, State Coordinator, NRC, Assam and feel that appropriate directions will be passed on the next date of hearing. In the meanwhile, we expect that the State Government will do everything in its power including the furnishing of necessary man-power in order that the said mammoth task be completed at the earliest.
We are extremely grateful to Shri Upamanyu Hazarika, learned Senior Advocate, who has taken great pains and has apprised us of the situation as it obtains on the ground. We thank him for his efforts and finding that he has completed the task set out for him by this Court, there would not be any further requirement of his services. It is ordered accordingly.
We request the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India to make available this Bench on 1 st December, 2015 for the
whole day for hearing of the issues raised before us.
[VINOD LAKHINA] [ASHA SONI] COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
Page No.7 of 7