[ad_1]
The Supreme Court on Monday criticized the increasing number of foreigners in India, dismissed the petition of an Israeli and demanded the custody of their two minor daughters and expressed concern over long -term illegal residents, Bar and bench Informed
The Supreme Court rejected an argument filed by an Israeli National, recently claimed to be the father of two minor girls born to a Russian woman living in a cave in Gokarna, Karnataka, Karnataka.
Why did the Supreme Court reject the petition of Israeli’s father?
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymlya Bagchi dismissed a petition filed by Drear Shlomo Goldstein, who claimed to be the father of two minor girls, who were trying to stop Russia. The court described the trial as “publicity interest” and “trivial”.
“This country has become a shelter site for all kinds of people. Anyone comes and lives here endlessly,” the bench commented during the hearing, asking how Goldstein was retaining himself in India.
“Why are you in India despite being Israel? What is your source of livelihood? We do not want to comment on your activities but how are you alive in Goa?” The court asked, as the Goldstein’s lawyer sought a stay.
The bench eventually allowed Goldstein to withdraw the petition, dismissing it as withdrawing, while challenging its claims of paternity and lack of clarification as the children were found while living in a forest cave.
“If you are a father, what were you doing when your children were living in a cave? Why should we not even order your exile?” The court asked.
What is the background of the case?
The controversy stems from July this year, when Nina Kutina, a 40 -year -old Russian woman, and her two daughters, who at the age of six and five, were rescued by the local police from a forest cave in Karnataka. They were allegedly staying there for weeks without a valid journey or residence documents.
Trio, along with a minor son of Kutiina from another relationship found in Goa, was sent to an foreigner’s detention center before returning to Russia on 28 September.
Goldstein, who lives in Goa, claimed that he had provided for the welfare of children. However, the courts found their explanation unconfirmed, keeping in mind the unusual and uncertain conditions of children’s living conditions.
What has the Supreme Court addressed other people?
In a separate case, the court considered a argument of Sudani National Yusuf Aaron Yagaub Mohammed, who sought protection from forced action for the alleged overstance.
“You know that MHA does not accept the refugee card … Why don’t you go to Australia?
The court took care of entertaining such petitions, noted:
Highlighting the scale of the issue, “Lakh and lakhs are sitting here.”
Mohammed’s petition was eventually disposed of, as he had already contacted the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).
Why is India facing investigation on illegal overseas?
India currently lacks a domestic refugee law and manages to shelter and overstay issues through the Foreign Act, 1946 and Passport (Admission to India) Rules, 1950.
Recent enforcement measures, especially in Goa, Karnataka and Delhi, have targeted long -term overstaires and foreigners engaged in unauthorized activities. On 2 May, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) issued a nationwide notification to identify and deport illegal migrants. This notification is currently under judicial challenge.
The Supreme Court had earlier asked the Government of India to clarify its standard operation process, especially about minority communities, taking precautions against discriminatory practices.
[ad_2]
