New Delhi:The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine a plea by the Jharkhand government challenging a high court to constitute a fact-finding committee comprising central officers among others to examine allegations of illegal immigration into the state from Bangladesh.
A bench of justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah scheduled the matter for hearing on November 8 and observed that the appeal filed by the state government raises an “important issue”, and the court needs time to examine the files carefully.
The state government counsel pressed that Jharkhand was not a border state, and the court's order has become a topic for speeches in the assembly elections scheduled in November.
The state, in its appeal to the apex court, submitted that the constitution of a fact-finding committee would amount to an interference in its autonomy and power to deal with the issue of illegal migration.
The apex court noted that the state government had independent powers under the law to deal with the problem while questioning the intervention of the high court.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the state government, requested the bench to put on hold the order passed by the Jharkhand High Court.
The high court, in September, passed the order based on an affidavit filed by the central government, which claimed that “infiltration has been assessed to have taken place”. The state government had said this basis was not backed by data while challenging the Union government’s claims.
During the hearing, Sibal asked whether the order passed by the high court was based on any cogent data presented before it and sought a stay on the order. After hearing submissions, the bench scheduled the matter for further hearing later this week.
The high court had passed the order on a PIL filed by Danyaal Danish alleging widespread illegal immigration and infiltration into the six districts of Godda, Jamtara, Pakur, Dumka, Sahibganj, and Deoghar.
The appeal filed by the state government contended that the high court’s order did not represent the current status on the ground, rather it was based on population figures pertaining to the years 1961 and 2011.
