It is submitted that the Screening Committee under the IM (DT) Rules have rejected the cases for reference to IM (DT) Tribunals due to lack of positive evidence since under the IM (DT) Act it is the Government or the Complainant with payment of fees and affidavit who is required to establish by positive evidence that the suspect is an illegal migrant. However, to the contrary under the Foreigners Act, under Section 9, the onus is on the suspect to prove that he is not a foreigner. Section 9 of the Foreigners Act reads as under:-

“9. Burden of Proof: If in any case not falling under Section 8 any question arise with reference to this Act or any order made or direction given thereunder, whether any person is or is not a foreigner or is not a foreigner of a particular class or description the onus of proving that such person is not a foreigner or is not a foreigner of such particular class or description, as the case may be, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 to 1872) lie upon such person.’

17. That the IMDT Act is a discriminatory piece of Legislation, because it has made impermissible geographical classification for its application in a particular State only without justification/reason. The object of Legislation is to detect ‘illegal migrants’ which is species of foreign national, in order to deport such foreigners. There cannot be any geographical differentiation with the manner of defection and deportation as has been Practiced in the IMDT Act. As such differentia not pertinent to the object of the Legislation and the object to be achieved has no nexus to the classification.