VANCOUVERBC: A Sikh Religious leader who fears torture and persecution in India won the right to challenge in the High Court the Home Secretary’s decision to deport him.

In a case that highlights concerns over procedures employed by the Government in national security cases Justice Popplewell ordered an urgent hearing of the judicial review sought by Karamjit Singh Chahal.

Lawyers and civil rights campaigners argue that they are a form of extradition by the back door. Chahal 42 who has lived in Britain for 20 years has never been told the details of the allegations against him and has no right of formal appeal. His only recourse has been to the Home Office advisory panel that hears national security cases. But even before it he remained ignorant of the charges and was denied legal representation and the right to cross-examine anyone who might be making allegations against him. Neither is he panel’s decision which is not made known binding on the Home secretary.

The expulsion procedures being used against Chahal a well-known campaigner for Sikh independence are the same as those that were criticized during the Gulf war when a number of Iraqis and Palestinians were rounded up to be adopted on grounds of national security.

Nicholas Blake Chahal’s counsel said the case raised important issues concerning the powers of the courts to review such a deportation order when there was substantial evidence that expulsion would lead to torture or inhumane or degrading treatment.

Chahal whose two children are British has been in Bedford prison since his arrest in August last year.

He has furnished the Home Office with evidence and medical reports supporting his claims of torture on a visit to India in 1984 when he was detained for three weeks. He says that several members of his family have also been tortured and killed.

The Government had contested the move arguing that the courts had no power to intervene in the Home Secretary’s decision to expel Chahal.

But at the end of the hearing the judge refused Chahal bail but granted him leave to seek judicial review of the Home Secretary’s August 1990 decision to deport him for reasons “conducive to the public good” and his subsequent refusal in March this year to grant him political asylum. These were described as reasons of national security and alleged involvement in terrorism.

(The Independent)

Article extracted from this publication >> September 13, 1991