Introduction: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has brought attention to a significant humanitarian and legal issue concerning 48 foreign nationals languishing in Punjab jails despite having completed their sentences. This matter has prompted the court to summon a Punjab government officer to provide an explanation for this prolonged and seemingly unjust detention.
Background: The High Court's action stemmed from the submission of an affidavit by the Punjab government, revealing that these foreign nationals, some of whom have been in custody since as early as 2008, have not been deported due to various administrative and diplomatic challenges. The court's scrutiny highlighted cases where consular access had been granted years ago, but the verification of nationality status remains pending. This situation underscores a systemic inefficiency in handling the repatriation and deportation processes for foreign convicts.
Judicial Review: The division bench comprising Justice GS Sandhawalia and Justice Vikas Bahl meticulously reviewed the affidavit and expressed concern over the apparent negligence in verifying the nationality of these detainees. The judges noted instances where, despite the verification of nationality, deportation had not occurred. This judicial intervention aims to ensure that the fundamental rights of these individuals are not infringed upon due to bureaucratic delays.
Notable Cases: Among the highlighted cases, the court mentioned a Nigerian national who was acquitted, yet remains in custody because an appeal against the acquittal is pending. The court criticized the reasoning that deportation would only follow the dismissal of the appeal, labeling it as an insufficient justification for continued detention.
Directive to Punjab Government: In response to the troubling findings, the court directed the concerned officer to personally appear and explain the circumstances under which these 48 foreign nationals continue to be detained. The court emphasized the need for accountability and prompt action to rectify these administrative oversights, thereby safeguarding the rights of these individuals.
Comparison with Chandigarh: The affidavit submitted by UT Chandigarh presented a contrasting scenario, where 18 foreign inmates are currently lodged in Model Jail, Chandigarh, but none of them have completed their sentences and remain behind bars. The court commended Chandigarh's approach and directed Punjab to adopt similar procedures to ensure timely deportation of foreign nationals upon completion of their sentences.
Suo Motu Cognizance: The High Court's proactive stance is part of a broader suo motu cognizance regarding the plight of foreign nationals in jails across Punjab, Haryana, and UT Chandigarh. The bench also included the Union of India through the Secretary to the Ministry of External Affairs as a respondent to address the diplomatic and international aspects of the issue. This inclusion signifies the court's comprehensive approach to resolving the systemic failures in handling foreign convicts.
Deportation of Pakistani Nationals: In a related suo motu cognizance, the High Court has directed the Union government to expedite the deportation of Pakistani nationals who have completed their sentences. The court warned of imposing exemplary costs if these directives are not followed, signaling its determination to enforce compliance and uphold the rights of these individuals.
Legal Representation: The proceedings saw representation from various legal officials, including Mr. Deepak Balyan, Additional Advocate General of Haryana, Mr. Avnish Mittal, Additional Advocate General of Punjab, Ms. Aashna Gill, Junior Panel Counsel for UT Chandigarh, and Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India. Their involvement underscores the gravity and complexity of the issue, requiring coordination across multiple levels of government and judiciary.
Conclusion: The Punjab and Haryana High Court's intervention in the matter of foreign nationals languishing in jails post-completion of their sentences highlights significant gaps in the administration of justice and international diplomacy. By summoning a government officer and demanding explanations, the court seeks to address these inefficiencies and ensure that the fundamental rights of these individuals are not compromised. This case underscores the critical need for streamlined processes and better inter-agency coordination to prevent such prolonged detentions in the future.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.