Foreigners Tribunals working in an arbitrary manner, Justice (retd) Madan Lokur

Foreigners Tribunals entrusted with the responsibility of deciding the question of citizenship of persons have been functioning in an arbitrary manner, retired Supreme Court judge, Justice Madan Lokur said on Sunday..Justice Lokur was speaking at a two-day People’s Tribunal on the issue of challenges to citizenship in the backdrop of the recently published National Register of Citizens (NRC)..Sharing his thoughts and observations on the issue, Justice Lokur said that one of the aspects that was bothering him was that Foreigners Tribunals do not have a set procedure and are functioning in an arbitrary manner..“Tribunals have been functioning apparently in a very arbitrary manner. There are so many Tribunals and the procedure is not outlined. Each Tribunal can devise its own procedure. So if you have 100 tribunals you have 100 procedures. isn’t there a possibility of some uniformity in all these procedures?”.This lack of uniformity leads to a situation where people going to different Tribunals are faced with different procedures which further points at the poorly planned exercise..“Why is it that a person goes to one particular Tribunal gets one particular result and another person goes to another Tribunal and has to face an all different procedure. There has to be some kind of uniformity and this takes me back to lack of planning which seems to exist in this entire procedure.”.The direct manifestation of this lack of uniformity was the fact that a majority of the orders concerning a very crucial question of these people’s existence were passed ex-parte..“You have complaints against tribunals functioning. You have responses which show to us that two-thirds of the orders passed by the tribunals are ex parte because there is no clear procedure that has been followed.”.Justice Lokur said that the situation in Assam concerning the detention of those who could not prove their Indian citizenship was perturbing. A growing change in India goes to show that the Indian jurisprudence which values personal liberty and prioritizes it over detention or custody is being departed from, Justice Lokur added..He said that if a person’s name is not included in the NRC, the first option exercised in most cases was to put the person in a detention centre..“Now, this is a change we are seeing across the country which is to say that detention or jail in IPC cases really becomes the first option, whereas the jurisprudence of our country has been that you should be on bail, you should not be in custody. So why is detention becoming the first option for those persons who are not in the NRC?”.There exist various other options which can be exercised before curtailing a person’s liberty by placing him in a detention centre. Why are these options not exhausted before curtailing a person’s liberty, asked Justice Lokur..“What about looking at some other options. There are several other options which can be exercised but why is it that detention becomes the first option. This is actually putting our jurisprudence on the head and this now becoming worrisome because this detention period can go on and on and it is indeterminate and theoretically a person can remain in detention for the rest of his or her life.”.The Supreme Court, in an order passed earlier this year, had said that any person who had been in detention centres for a period of three years or more in Assam should be released with some conditions. However, Justice Lokur questioned the need for such an order and the disturbing trend of the Indian authorities choosing detention over human rights for the people in Assam..“The Supreme Court arrived at some figure to say that anyone in detention for three years should be released. Why should that happen? This is something that is very very troubling. This is a question of human rights not to be put into custody but here we are first putting a person in custody and then figuring out what should be done.”