Police rapped for not releasing Pakistani national
By IANSTuesday, March 9, 2010
NEW DELHI - Taking exception to the fact that a Pakistani national who was acquitted by a trial court three months ago is still languishing in the foreigners detention camp, the Delhi High Court Wednesday asked two officers of the Delhi Police to appear in person to provide an explanation for this.
A division bench of acting Chief Justice Madan B. Lokur and Justice Mukta Gupta summoned the assistant commissioner (prevention) and senior superintendent of police (SSP) of the Indira Gandhi International Airport to appear personally and explain why the Pakistani national was still languishing in the camp after the trial court acquitted him in a customs case last December.
The court directed the officers to appear March 23.
Counsel Arvind Nigam, who was appointed as amicus curiae, informed the bench that many foreign nationals have been languishing in Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) deportation camps since 2006 and no effort has been made by the government to deport them.
“Some people have been there for 2-3 years without any detention order,” Nigam told the court. The exact number of people detained in these camps is not known.
The court directed Nigam to prepare a set of new guidelines for the department concerned for future course of action.
“Why is the government silent on deporting foreign nationals? Why is your pace slow in this matter?” the bench asked the counsel for government.
“The government is not interested in filing an appeal in the said matter. Then why is the person still in India? He should have been sent back,” the bench said stating that the limitation period of filing an appeal in this case has already expired.
Terming it an unconstitutional step, the bench said: “You cannot detain persons like this.”
Last year, 11 detainees wrote a letter to the court complaining about poor conditions of living in deportation camps. They said the camps faced perennial shortage of drinking water and the quality of food served was also poor. The court took the letter as a public interest litigation and initiated legal proceedings.
