Published on: 19 November 2022 at 21:53 IST
In the case of Pranab Borah v. Union of India, the Supreme Court sent notice to the Assam government on Friday regarding a petition filed by 89 members of the Foreigners Tribunals in Assam challenging their discharge from service by the State of Assam.
A directive issued by the Supreme Court on May 30, 2019, which called for the establishment of additional Foreigners Tribunals, mandated the contractual appointment of these members. They received notification of their discharge on October 14, which has been challenged in the highest court.
A bench composed of Justice Hima Kohli and Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud served notice on the State of Assam and requested its response.
“Notice will be sent.” Send it to Assam’s standing counsel,” the court ordered.
A sum of 221 people was delegated to Outsiders Councils in 2019 as per the top court’s headings.
Advocate Kaushik Choudhury made the argument in the plea that the State’s order to dismiss the petitions is completely arbitrary, discriminatory, and in direct violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution.
The plea submitted by petitioner stated that, “It is pertinent to mention that contrary to the stand of the respondents, petitioners were on the duty of deciding the Foreigners reference cases at the time of their forfeiture and as on date admittedly more than 1 lakhs foreigners reference cases are pending in Assam,”
In addition, the petitioners claimed that the state mis-classified their service by misinterpreting the fact that their duty was to resolve only issues pertaining to the National Register of Citizens (NRC), and since the NRC has not yet been published and rejection slips have not yet been distributed, their duty has been forfeited.
It was additionally called attention to that there were different individuals recently selected to Outsiders Councils on legally binding premise however their administration has been stretched out occasionally.
“The petitioners’ service was forfeited, which appears to be discriminatory, while previous Tribunal Members were permitted to continue in their service as of the date.”
According to the plea, “The Government has put the petitioners in a different class simply because the appointment was made in view of the direction of this Hon’ble Court and without there being any valid reason and without even informing and taking leave of this Court.”