In Re Section 6a Of The Citizenship Act 1955 vs. Union Of India Ministry Of Home Affairs Secretary
AI Summary
In a significant Public Interest Litigation concerning the Citizenship Act's Section 6A and its impact on Assam, the Supreme Court issued a procedural order allowing an intervention application. This directive mandates the filing of replies and rejoinders, signaling the ongoing complexities and the court's commitment to a thorough examination of this critical case affecting millions.
Case Identifiers
Petitioner's Counsel
Respondent's Counsel
Advocates on Record
eCourtsIndia AITM
Brief Facts Summary
This order pertains to I.A. No. 2 in a Writ Petition (Civil) No. 274 of 2009, filed by Assam Public Works against the Union of India and others. An application for intervention was being heard, and the court, after hearing counsel, allowed the said application and directed the parties to file replies and rejoinders within specified timelines.
Timeline of Events
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 274/2009 filed.
I.A. No. 2 heard and allowed by the Supreme Court. Directions issued for filing replies and rejoinders.
Key Factual Findings
I.A. No. 2 is allowed.
Source: Current Court Finding
Primary Legal Issues
Statutes Applied
Court's Reasoning
The Court's decision to allow I.A. No. 2 and direct the filing of replies and rejoinder is a standard procedural step. It indicates the court's intent to gather all necessary pleadings to fully understand the intervention application and proceed with the main matter. The reasoning is purely administrative and aimed at ensuring due process and complete documentation.
- Strict Adherence to Procedure
- Ensuring Due Process
Specific Directions
- 1.I.A. No. 2 is allowed.
- 2.Reply, if any, to the application be filed within two weeks.
- 3.Rejoinder, if any, be filed within one week thereafter.
Precedential Assessment
Non-Binding (Procedural)
This order is purely procedural, dealing with the allowance of an intervention application and setting a timeline for pleadings. It does not establish any substantive legal principle or interpret any law, thus holding no precedential value beyond its immediate context.
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
Ê ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.4 SECTION PIL (In Chambers) S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A.No.2 in WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 274 OF 2009 ASSAM PUBLIC WORKS Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondent(s) (With appln(s) for intervention and office report ) Date: 23/02/2011 This appln. was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALVEER BHANDARI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Praveen Swarup,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr.Syed Ali Ahmad, Adv. Mr.Syed Tanweer Ahmad, Adv. for Mr. Mohan Pandey ,Adv Mr.Mohit D.Ram, Adv. for Ms. Meenakshi Arora ,Adv Mr.Vikas Bansal, Adv. for Mr. Shreekant N. Terdal ,Adv Mr.Keshav Raychaudhuri, Adv. for M/S Corporate Law Group ,Advs UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R I.A.No.2 is allowed. Reply, if any, to the application be filed within two weeks and rejoinder, if any, be filed wi thin one week thereafter.
(G.V.Ramana) (Neeru Bala Vij) Court Master Court Master