ANOWAR ALI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A.C. Buragohain, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 as well as Mr. M. Bhagawati, learned Central Government Counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 2. The writ petition has been placed before the Full Bench consequent upon an order passed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice following an order dated 5.3.2013 passed by a learned single Judge of this court. The question which requires answer by the Full Bench is:

(2.) AT the outset, it will be relevant, nay necessary, to briefly indicate the factual matrix leading to filing of the present writ petition by the four writ petitioners who are all members of the same family. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of the petitioner No. 2 and father of petitioner Nos. 3 and 4.

(3.) BEFORE the narration is completed by adverting to what transpired subsequent to the rendering of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 17.6.2005, we need to pause here and mention briefly at this stage a very significant development that had taken place, which is the bed -rock of the reference that has been placed before the Full Bench. The Apex Court by a judgment and order dated 12.7.2005 in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India and another, reported in : (2005) 5 SCC 665 : : AIR 2005 SC 2920, declared the provisions of IMDT Act and the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Rules, 1984, for short, IMDT Rules to be ultra vires the Constitution and struck them down. Some other directions were also given, which will be considered at a more appropriate place.