Tablighi Jamaat participants from foreign countries liable for punitive action, Centre tells SC

The Union government on Thursday told the Supreme Court that foreigners who participated in Tablighi Jamaat Markaz have jeopardised many lives amid the ongoing Covid-19 public health emergency and they are liable for legal action.

They violated their visa conditions and action against them are in no way violative of Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution, it said.

The Centre informed the Supreme Court that visas of 2679 foreigners from 35 countries were cancelled for participating in Tablighi Jamaat Markaz in March. The decision was taken on a case to case basis for violating the visa rules as well as other laws.

In an affidavit, the Ministry of Home Affairs said that it has so far blacklisted 2765 foreign Tablighis for participating in the event.

Since many are not traceable, 1,906 look out circulars have been issued. As many as 205 FIRs were lodged against them in 11 States under the Foreigners Act, National Disaster Management Act, Epedmic Diseases Act and the IPC.

It further told the court that the foreign Tablighis, who attended Jamat on the basis of tourist visa, will be prosecuted.

It has asked the States to ensure that foreign nationals, found involved in Tablighi activities on tourist visa, should not be immediately deported to their countries after their quarantine period is over.

A total of 227 foreigners had already left the country before issuance of lookout circular and blacklisting. "No foreign Tablighi Jamaat members has been deported so far as criminal proceedings were going on against them," it said.

On Thursday, a bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna allowed Maulana Ala Hadrami and others, including a pregnant woman, who questioned the MHA's decision, to file their rejoinder. The court decided to take up the matter on July 10. It also allowed the petitioners to approach the authorities for deportation during the pendency of the matter.

The Centre, for its part, asserted that no illegal immigrant can pray for a writ which directly or indirectly confer fundamental right in general and right to move freely or form association in particular. It also said the blacklisting of foreigners was a sovereign function and the court should not entertain their plea against it.