Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, announcing the decision, said the measure would empower civil administration and “to a large extent nullify the role of Foreigners’ Tribunals”.

What the SOP provides

1. Notice and proof – On receiving information from the police or border authorities, the DC issues notice to a suspect, granting 10 days to produce documents proving citizenship.
2. DC’s decision – If documents are unsatisfactory, the DC issues a written order of expulsion under Section 2(a) of the 1950 Act. The person must leave within 24 hours, using a route specified by the DC.
3. Declared foreigners – Where the Foreigners’ Tribunal (FT) has already declared a person a foreigner, the DC will directly issue an expulsion order, bypassing further scrutiny.
4. Police role – Before expulsion, the SSP records biometric and demographic details on the Foreigners Identification Portal.
5. Detention and “pushback” – If a person refuses to leave, they may be placed in a holding centre or handed to the BSF. Individuals detected near the zero line or within 12 hours of entry will be pushed back immediately.

What did CM Sarma say during the Press Meet?

On September 9, 2025, the Assam Cabinet approved the framing of a standard operating procedure (SOP) for implementing the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950.

Addressing a late-night press conference, Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma explained that under the new SOP:

• If a District Commissioner (DC) receives information from the police or any other source that a person is suspected to be an illegal immigrant, the DC will issue a notice directing the person to produce proof of Indian citizenship within 10 days.
• After hearing the individual, if the DC arrives at the conclusion that the person is a foreigner, an immediate order of expulsion (“push-back”) will be issued.
• If the DC cannot reach a firm conclusion, the case will be referred to a Foreigners Tribunal (FT) for adjudication.

Sarma emphasised that the cut-off date remains March 25, 1971, in line with the Assam Accord. Thus, anyone alleged to have entered Assam after 1971 may be brought before the DC under the new procedure. Pending cases before Foreigners Tribunals will continue, but new cases not already before an FT can now be initiated directly before the DC.

The Chief Minister described this as a “landmark decision,” arguing that while the Act of 1950 had never been actively enforced in this manner, the Supreme Court had “clearly indicated” that Assam is free to use it for detection and deportation of foreigners. He claimed the SOP would allow the government to act in the “letter and spirit” of the law, making it easier for the State to expel those determined to be foreigners.

Link of press meet:

(12.25 minutes to 16.35 minutes)

Earlier, on August 21, 2025, the Assam Cabinet also resolved that the State would stop issuing Aadhaar cards to adults, further tightening its documentation regime.

Historical and legal backdrop

The Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 was passed by the Union government in response to post-Partition migration from East Pakistan. It empowered the government to order the removal of any non-Indian whose stay was deemed “detrimental to the public interest” or to the interests of Scheduled Tribes in Assam.

But within a month, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru instructed Assam’s Chief Minister Gopinath Bordoloi to suspend its use following the Liaquat–Nehru Pact (April 1950), which sought to protect minorities on both sides of the border. The Act then fell into disuse. However, the 1950 Act and its use has surfaced only recently, for the same is being used to detain and “push-out” people.

SOP leaves fundamental questions unanswered

Mrinmoy Dutta, Advocate (Gauhati High Court) and counsel for Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), said that the new SOP marks a clear attempt to shift the entire process of citizenship determination from the quasi-judicial Foreigners’ Tribunals to the executive authority of the Deputy Commissioner (DC).

He explained that India’s Citizenship Act does not clearly specify what documents are required to prove citizenship, particularly for those born in India. “There is no definitive legal framework that says what proof of citizenship by birth should look like. This makes the SOP deeply uncertain in its operation,” he noted.

Dutta stressed that there is no debate over the principle that foreigners who entered Assam after March 25, 1971 must be excluded in line with the Assam Accord. “The real question is: who is a foreigner, and how will they be identified? Earlier, this role was entrusted to Foreigners’ Tribunals, but now the SOP transfers that function to the DC, without clear legal safeguards.”

He further pointed out that the SOP does not clarify how it interacts with the National Register of Citizens (NRC). Under NRC rules, persons excluded from the final NRC list were supposed to receive rejection slips, enabling them to appeal. “Those rejection slips have not yet been issued. Now, if a DC serves a notice, it is unclear whether this process will be linked to the NRC or entirely independent of it. Can the SOP override NRC appeal provisions or bypass the Foreigners’ Tribunal framework? These are fundamental unanswered questions,” he said.

Another major concern, Dutta observed, is the absence of an appeal mechanism. “If someone receives a notice late or cannot produce documents within ten days, there is no statutory appeal provision in the SOP. The only remedy left is to approach the High Court under writ jurisdiction. This places a heavy burden on individuals, particularly the poor and marginalized.”

He concluded that judicial scrutiny and oversight are indispensable, because in its current form the SOP risks arbitrary expulsions without clear rules, adequate time, or meaningful remedies.

Critical concerns

1. Bypassing judicial Tribunals

Traditionally, questions of citizenship and foreigner status in Assam are adjudicated by Foreigners’ Tribunals (FTs), quasi-judicial bodies created under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. The new SOP places this power in the hands of executive officers (DCs), raising concerns of bias, lack of due process, and arbitrary decision-making.

While Sarma insists that only “confusing cases” will go to FTs, this reverses the default mechanism: from judicial determination to administrative fiat. Many argue this risks turning citizenship adjudication into a purely bureaucratic exercise.

2. Violation of natural justice

The SOP grants only 10 days for a suspected person to prove citizenship. Given the well-documented difficulties in Assam — poor documentation, illiteracy, displacement due to floods, and language barriers — this period may be unrealistically short. Legal scholars caution that it fails to meet the constitutional requirements of fair hearing and reasonable opportunity under Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 21 (right to life and liberty).

3. Separation of powers and Constitutional mandate

By allowing DCs to override FTs, the SOP arguably undermines the statutory role of Foreigners’ Tribunals, established precisely to ensure that complex citizenship questions are not left to executive discretion. The principle of separation of powers — where determination of rights is reserved for judicial or quasi-judicial bodies — is at stake.

4. Risk of arbitrary expulsions and statelessness

The SOP also permits immediate pushbacks at the border within 12 hours, without any process. This could lead to collective expulsions in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution and India’s obligations under international law, including the principle of non-refoulement under customary international law.

Constitutional and legal questions

1. Does the SOP violate Article 21? The Supreme Court has repeatedly held (e.g., Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)) that “procedure established by law” must be just, fair and reasonable. Ten days to prove citizenship may not satisfy this threshold.
2. Can executive SOP override statutory mechanisms? The Foreigners Act, 1946 and Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 explicitly entrust FTs with the task of determining citizenship disputes. An executive SOP cannot, in law, displace this statutory framework unless backed by Parliament.
3. Equal Protection (Article 14): Selective targeting of Bengali-speaking Muslims, as human rights groups fear, may amount to hostile discrimination. Even if the SOP is facially neutral, its implementation could violate the Article 14 guarantee against arbitrariness.
4. Judicial Review: The SOP is likely to face constitutional challenge. Courts will have to weigh whether the 1950 Act, designed as an emergency measure, can be resurrected in a way that dilutes procedural safeguards crafted over decades.

Government justification

It has been argued by the state that the move is consistent with the Supreme Court’s 2024 directions to employ the 1950 Act alongside Section 6A. According to the report of NDTV, with over 82,000 cases pending before FTs, the government says speedier administrative action is necessary to curb illegal immigration.

Sarma has also claimed that Assam has already “pushed back” more than 30,000 illegal immigrants, and the SOP simply codifies what has been practice on the ground, as reported by Assam Tribune.

Conclusion

The Assam government’s SOP under the 1950 Act is more than a bureaucratic measure — it marks a radical shift in how India addresses contested citizenship. By moving decision-making from quasi-judicial bodies to executive officers, it raises deep constitutional concerns about due process, separation of powers, and fundamental rights.

The legal test ahead will be whether courts uphold this framework as a legitimate application of the Supreme Court’s 2024 judgment, or strike it down as executive overreach incompatible with the Constitution’s guarantees of liberty and justice.

Related:

India’s New Immigration Order 2025: Consolidation or continuity of exclusion?

Not a Foreigner! Foreigners’ Tribunal declares Sukumar Baishya Indian citizen

Assam government to withdraw ‘Foreigner’ cases against Non-Muslims under Citizenship Amendment Act

Banasha Bibi, Bengali-speaking Muslim woman with disability, declared Indian in CJP-Led Legal Win

Assam’s Citizenship Crisis: How Foreigners Tribunals construct an architecture of exclusion and rights violations

The post From Tribunals to DCs, 10 Days to Prove Citizenship: Assam’s radical shift in “foreigner” expulsions appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On May 30, last Friday, late evening, Saikia released this letter in a social media post on Meta-Facebook. He wrote:

“BJP government has created a new conspiracy against minority society in the name of foreign deportation in Assam. Under the leadership of the new BJP Himanta Biswa Sharma, RSS is taking care to terrorize the Muslim society. Let foreigners be deported. This is what I want for sure. Assam is first for the people of Assam – this is my total belief. But I am totally against the “Muslim means Bangladeshi” ethnicity which has been created. India is famous as Assam Shankar-Ajan country. BJP is trying today to start a brotherhood conflict. That’s why hand-in-hand guns now. We want to see the books in the hands of our young Sam, not the grenades. They are trying to enforce the situation in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh in Assam. The Chief Minister is now like a Sasemira, whoever does not ask, he says Pakistan in the answer. I am expressing all these things through two memorandum in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Home Department yesterday. Read it.”

The letter sent by Saikia may be read below.

Saikia has, in this communication, accused the Assam Police of violating constitutional rights and due process in these operations. The All India United Democratic Front (AIUDF) has also petitioned the Governor, protesting the “continued” harassment of Indian Muslims on the pretext of identifying “illegal immigrants.”

Saikia claimed that since May 23, hundreds of Indian citizens, including some not involved in any citizenship-related legal proceedings, have been “arbitrarily detained.” While some have been released, these detentions highlight “serious procedural lapses.”

Citing media reports, Saikia alleged that several detainees, including women, were forcibly pushed into the “no man’s land” along the Indo-Bangladesh border, leaving them stateless as Bangladesh refuses to accept them. One such case involves Khairul Islam, a former government school teacher whose citizenship case is still pending before the Supreme Court, yet he was allegedly picked up from a detention centre and forced across the border.

Saikia emphasized that since several citizenship cases are pending before the apex court, these detentions and pushbacks constitute a “clear violation of the judicial process.” The Supreme Court itself has previously issued interim directions stating that no coercive steps should be taken against individuals whose cases are sub judice.

While most detainees were eventually released, their wrongful apprehension itself points to serious procedural lapses. Families remain uninformed about the whereabouts of detainees, violating basic transparency norms. Media reports confirm that many detainees, including women, have been forcibly pushed into the no-man’s-land at the India-Bangladesh border, leaving them stateless as Bangladesh refuses to accept them.

In this letter dated May 30 May Saikia highlighted several serious violations of constitutional rights and due process in what is being termed as Assam’s “push back drive.”

Saikia reminded the EAM that this action directly contradicts India’s stated position on deportation, quoting Dr. Jaishankar’s own parliamentary statement that emphasized the necessity of “unambiguous verification of nationality” before any repatriation. The letter notes with concern that these operations appear to target Muslim communities, undermining India’s secular fabric. It also points out that several cases are still pending before the Supreme Court, making these detentions and pushbacks a clear violation of the judicial process.

Saikia has urgently appealed for central intervention to immediately halt these unconstitutional actions, ensure proper nationality verification before any deportation, release all wrongly detained Indian citizens, and make detainee information publicly available.

He stressed that pushing people in the no-man’s-land without proper legal procedure is both illegal and fundamentally inhumane. Saikia said,“Pushing Indian citizens into no-man’s-land without verification is unconstitutional and fundamentally inhumane. The repatriation during the pendency of a Supreme Court case constitutes a grave breach of the judicial process. This further violates international human rights standards.”

Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, who has been accused of late for aggressive hate speeches against minorities has been reported to have stated that the state is “duty-bound to protect the interests” of Assam and “expel all illegal immigrants from the state through any means and as per directions of the Supreme Court.”

The CM also claimed that persons with pending citizenship cases are not being detained. The state government has adopted a “push back” route as a solution to its long struggle for deporting “illegal migrants.”

Human rights organizations and affected families express deep concerns about the humanitarian consequences of these actions, including prolonged detention, family separation, and the risk of statelessness. The Supreme Court has also previously criticized the indefinite detention of declared “foreigners” and urged the state to expedite deportations.

Assam chief minister Himanta Biswa Sarma on Friday said that only declared foreigners are being pushed back as per the law.

However media reports, and an exclusive Ground Report by Citizens for Justice and Peace, suggests to the country. This may be read here.

First, a video has emerged in the ‘no man’s land’ along the Indo-Bangladesh border in Assam’s South Salmara Mankachar district, Where Khairul Islam’s claimed that he is an Indian national and being deported to Bangladesh. Islam was among nine persons arrested by Morigaon police on May 24 in a crackdown on illegal immigrants declared by the Foreigners’ Tribunal, but who had been avoiding deportation.

Himanto Biswas Sarma, Chief Minister, Assam, was reported to have said on May 30, “The Supreme Court has directed us declared foreign nationals must be sent back. Declared foreigners who did not appeal in the court we had been pushed back. On Thursday we apprehended 35 Bangladeshi nationals along the Meghalaya and Silchar border. They came some days back and we instantly pushed them back.”

He added, “In meeting with SPs in Dergaon we have decided that we will fast track the process of detection of foreigners. As the National Register of Citizens (NRC) process was underway, detection of foreigners was temporarily suspended. So in the days to come detection will take place, push back will be done and the government of India after talks with the Bangladesh government will send some foreigners. So these three ways will continue.”

Chief Minister said, “Whoever has not gone to higher judiciary despite being declared a foreigner, and not preferred appeal against the tribunal order, they must go. We have 30,000 people who despite being declared foreigners have disappeared, if we find somewhere we have to take action against them. Whatever is done is as per law.”

However ground level claims contradict what Sarma has stated. For example, Khairul Islam was declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal in 2016, a decision he challenged in the Gauhati High Court. The High Court upheld the FT’s ruling, leading to his detention in 2018. Documents reveal that the appeal against the FT decision is pending before the Supreme Court and the last hearing was in December 2024.

Related:

Assam Border Police cracks down on residents battling citizenship rights without due process, pushes 145 locals over the border?

The post Assam: Slamming Sarma’s actions as discriminatory & unlawful, LOP, Assam Assembly Debabrata Saikia calls for an urgent stop to “pushback” of citizens appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Be it Doyjan Bi, resident of Madhusailamari Part II village in Dhubri district, released on bail from the Kokrajhar Detention camp in May 2021, Abdul Shaikh, a riot survivor from the 1980s, resident of Satibargaon village, Chirang district released on bail in 2021, Mojibur Shaikh a daily wage earner earlier detained while he still battled for his citizenship rights in the Goalpara detention camp from where he was thereafter released on bail in 2023, Shamsul Ali, resident of Village No. 2 Goraimari, Chirang district who was released from the Goalpara detention camp in February 2020, all four are among the reported 145 unlawfully pushed out of India into No Man’s land are Indian citizens engaged in an ongoing battle for their citizenship rights. Then there is the fifth case on which there is available information, that of Khairul Islam, a retired 54-year old government school teacher from Morigaon district whose case is still pending in the Supreme Court of India (last hearing was in December 2024). All five are victims of the same arbitrary actions of the Assam police without any due process or notice.

Families of those unlawfully detained waiting for answers outside Matia Detention Centre

Despite desperate efforts by families, activists and advocates on the ground over the past few days, whereabouts of these five persons and close to a total of 145 persons are still unknown with clear indicators that they have been unlawfully “pushed” over the Indian border towards Bangladesh where they are vulnerable to firings from the Bangladesh forces or even the Indian Border Security Force (BSF). The area called ‘no man’s land’ between the Indian border along Assam and Bangladesh renders persons pushed there vulnerable to violence of multiple kinds. Firing both by the Border Guard Bangladesh (BGD) and Border Security Force (BSF) India, makes unarmed helpless persons vulnerable.

From the night of Friday 23, Saturday 24, Sunday May 25 and Monday, May 26, bus-loads of Assam police, swooped down on residents in all 33 districts of Assam – from the Barak Valley, Central Assam, Lower Assam and North Assam—and forcibly rounded up, without notice or legal reasoning close to 300 persons, women and men. To date, no details of their whereabouts were made available to family or advocates despite efforts made at district police stations and even the Matia Detention Centre, violating settled principles of law, Constitution and judicial directives. Information meticulously collected by the CJP’s ground level team over the past few days, indicates that after the first detentions, about 150 persons were thereafter released. Unconfirmed sources further told us that as many as 145 persons (each one of them, Indians, and still battling for restoration of their citizenship rights in Indian Courts and Tribunals) have been pushed across the border where they are vulnerable to attacks in the no man’s land between India and Bangladesh. These actions have been taken without following any due process and no information being given to their families or advocates.

Matia Detention Centre: Tuesday May 27

For over six hours on Tuesday, May 27, CJP’s team members tried unsuccessfully to get information on all the detainees. Matters got tense after agitated and anxious family members, present outside the Detention Centre, many of whom had brought food and clothing for their loved ones, were arrogantly thwarted by authorities. Despite the Centre being under the jurisdiction of the Jailor, the Jailor was not allowed to meet the family members and activists with the Assam Border police taking full control of the Centre.

CJP’s Team reached the Matia Detention Centre early on Tuesday after close monitoring and visits to District level police stations and the Border Branch on Monday. When the team reached the main the gate of detention centre, a crowd of agitated family members of those detained was desperately trying to speak with the police at the gate. They received no satisfactory answers. They were all frustrated. Having travelled long distances from various districts of Upper Assam to Lower Assam, they had brought food, clothes and money to give their dear ones detained by police. They were met with a stone wall of non-communication, standing in the scorching sun, hopeless. Anxiously they awaited some reassurance that their family members were safe.

Family members of the people unlawfully detained stand outside Matia Detention Centre

Soon it became clear that the police had been instructed to give no information at all. The CJP team had through its legal researchers prepared a detailed memorandum which it handed over to the authorities. This outlined details of the violations of the law on arrest, detention, judicial directives that were taking place. After first accepting it the authorities declined to take a copy or even give an acknowledgement. A copy of this may be read here.

Repeated efforts were made by us to present judgements and judicial precedents to the authorities, the police at the gate but they were adamant in their refusal to discuss the niceties of the law. The police officials at the gate were in constant touch with their “superiors” through phone calls, with the chain of command going up to the Additional Deputy Commissioner. But there was no response. When Nanda Ghosh, the state in charge, CJP team insisted on speaking to the Jailor, the police became aggressive, physically pushing the team back. The adamant refusal to entertain an advocates/citizen’s memorandum reveals a new turn in the way authorities deal with the Indian people, a scant respect for the law, Constitution and procedure. Finally they said that the whereabouts would be given after seven days!

The plight of family members was insufferable: an aged mother, a wife with a seven-month old baby, a younger brother, aged father, all anxious about their near and dear ones. CJP’s team offered them refreshments. Thereafter, moving to a nearby shady spot, for further inquiries and discussions amongst themselves, they also found local reporters there also making inquiries. Given that distances in Assam are arduous and the Matia Detention Centre remote, as late as 5 p.m. in the evening the team left taking some of the family of the victims of this unlawful detention along. Doyjan bi’s husband who also came with the hope to give her some dry food and two garments, had also brought her some money. But he returned to Goalpara with the team, disheartened. The tiny hope of Assam’s marginalised to share an evening meal with their loved ones together was cruelly snatched away by the Assam government in the dead of the night.

Outside Matia Detention Centre; food, clothes brought by family members for those unlawfully detained

By mid-afternoon on May 27, the Border Security Force (BSF) released a press note claiming actions against attempts at infiltration. “In a significant operation on the morning of 27th May, 2025, Border Security Force successfully thwarted an infiltration attempt by a large group of Bangladeshi nationals from the Indo-Bangladesh Boundary in South Salmara Mankachar district, Assam. 2. In the early hours of May 27, 2025, vigilant BSF troops deployed at Indo-Bangladesh International Border in district South Salamara Mankachar, Assam observed suspicious movement of Bangladesh nationals approaching towards International Boundary from the Bangladesh side with intention to cross into Indian Territory.” The entire text of the BSF press release may be read here.

So far we have confirmed details of unlawful action on at least six victims, though reports from villages and agitated families indicate that at least 145 persons are still untraceable after this “combing operation” that started on Saturday night. Reportedly, the Assam Border Police have arrived at homes of persons who are “Declared Foreigners” by Assam’s controversial Foreigner’s Tribunals (FTs), those who have been released on bail, arrested them and taken them back to the police station. After these arbitrary acts, no information on those detained/arrested, their wellbeing or whereabouts was passed or shared with anyone, including their family members, who had been waiting in distress outside police stations all night. There are also unconfirmed digital media reports that the DGP of Assam, Harmeet Singh has issued instructions to police stations in the state to prepare a list of “suspected citizens” under their jurisdiction.

As soon as the CJP team got distress calls about this arbitrary action by the police, our team started to reach out to affected communities, those battling the restoration of citizenship cases in courts and also those detainees released on bail to ensure they are aware of the dangers that await them. Repeated and desperate attempts by Doyjan’s husband to get information on her well-being and whereabouts from the police from 6 p.m. on Sunday night have been unsuccessful. The same is true of the others, Abdul Shaikh, a riot survivor whose home was burnt down during ethnic clashes in the state, Mojibur Sheikh and Shamsul Ali all of whom were released on bail with the assistance of the CJP team. Details of these may be read here, here, here and here.

Meanwhile, Khairul Islam, a 54 year old retired school teacher, alleged in a video interview (see below) also reported by Scroll.in, that he was among 14 people “pushed” into Bangladesh by India’s Border Security Force on Tuesday morning, May 27. (Since the happenings reportedly happened in the dark of the night, observers say that the darkness prompted the cross fire between the BSF and the Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB).

English Translation below:

Assalamualaikum, my name is Md. Khairul Islam. I’m a primary teacher and a resident of Assam, a state in India. Specifically, I live in Khandapukuri village under Mikirbhita police station and post office in Morigaon district, Assam. The Mikirbhita border police brought me to the Matia Detention Camp in Goalpara on 23rd May.
Yesterday, they brought me here right before Asar namaz and I got beaten up badly for not wanting to come. They hit my hands and other parts of my body and it really hurt. I repeatedly told them thousands time that I’m a teacher, begging them to show some respect to a teacher, but they didn’t listen. Instead, they kicked me and roughly pushed me into the car.
They tied my hands behind my back like a thief, forced me into the vehicle with others, and we arrived here around 4 am, just as the Fajar namaz was sounding. Our group of 14 people passed the border line by BSF around 4 a.m.
What is the name of your school?
I work in Thengkhali Khandapukhuri LP School.
Where did they pick you up from – the border or somewhere in the city?
They picked me up from my home and then put me in the camp.
Is your home near border?
No, far from the border.
How long have you been living in India?
My parents were born in India, even before India gained independence. We’re residents of India.
What is the name of your school?
The name of my school is Thengkhali Khandapukhuri LP School.
What did they tell you when they sent you over to this side?
We can’t say anything, we’re afraid of the guns. We’re scared they’ll shoot us. Lastly me, they tied my hands. I thought I wouldn’t be able to cross it, that they’d kill me. I prayed a lot.
Do you have any ID card?
No, they kept them all. They kept them all in the camp. I bought 8,000 rupees with me for food and my luggage they kept everything.
Did your family know everything?
My family might not know anything about it yet, maybe they’ll know it if someone informs them.

The leadership of All Assam Students Union (AASU), Assam Jatiya Yuva Chatra Parishad (AJYCP), and Lachit Sena has strongly supported the government’s inhumane, undemocratic, and unconstitutional actions during this humanitarian crisis.

However, independent voices like Arindam Dev, Faruk Laskar and Mrinal Kanti Shome who are part of the Forum For Social Harmony and Asom Majouri Sramik Union have strongly and publicly condemned this inhuman sweep operation by the present Assam government. The state unit of the CPI (M) has also condemned these unlawful actions of the authorities.

Every week, CJP’s dedicated team in Assam, comprising community volunteers, district volunteer motivators, and lawyers, provides vital paralegal support, counseling, and legal aid to many affected by the citizenship crisis in over 24 districts in Assam.  Through our hands-on approach, 12,00,000 people successfully submitted completed NRC forms (2017-2019). We fight Foreigner Tribunal cases monthly at the district level.  Through these concerted efforts, we have achieved an impressive success rate of 20 cases annually, with individuals successfully obtaining their Indian citizenship. This ground level data ensures informed interventions by CJP in our Constitutional Courts. Your support fuels this crucial work. Stand with us for Equal Rights for All #HelpCJPHelpAssam. Donate NOW!

Meanwhile, an advocate with the Indian National Congress (INC), Aman Wadud has approached the National Human Rights Commission yesterday, Tuesday May 27, in an Urgent Complaint wherein he requested the NHRC to:

1. Take suo motu cognizance of the arbitrary re-arrest and detention of Indian citizens and previously released declared foreigners in Assam as of 23.05.2025.
2. Issue urgent notices to the Chief Secretary, Government of Assam, and Director General of Police, Assam, seeking a status report on the basis of re-arrest, list of detainees, and legal justification
3. Intervene to prevent forced deportation, without due process and judicial oversight.
4. Direct the Government of Assam to immediately release those re-arrested individuals who have not violated any conditions of their earlier release and restore their liberty.
5. Recommend formulation of a humane and transparent policy on dealing with cases of disputed citizenship, in compliance with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
6. Recommend compensation and rehabilitation for individuals unlawfully detained for years and again subjected to re-arrest without cause.

The copy of this complaint may be read here.

Related:

Indian again! Matleb Ali’s fight to prove Indian identity ends with CJP’s intervention

From Detention to Deportation: The mass deportations and detention crisis at Assam’s Matia centre

Restoring Citizenship, Rebuilding Lives: CJP continues its journey in Assam

“Anti-conversion laws being weaponised”: CJP seeks interim relief against misuse of anti-conversion laws

The post Assam Border Police cracks down on residents battling citizenship rights without due process, pushes 145 locals over the border? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

What makes the judgment significant—but also contentious—is not merely its procedural holding, but the manner in which the Court treated the petitioner’s evidence. While the ruling rests on established precedents such as Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India (2019), it marks a notable shift from earlier Supreme Court positions that accepted minor discrepancies in names, dates, or residence as tolerable when weighed against the totality of credible documentary evidence.

As citizenship in Assam continues to be adjudicated through overlapping forums—FTs, NRC processes, and constitutional courts—this judgment bears important implications for legal strategy, evidentiary framing, and the fate of thousands accused of being ‘illegal immigrants.’ The case becomes a useful lens through which we may compare evolving judicial approaches to documentary evidence and procedural fairness.

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Rofiqul Hoque v. Union of India

Factual matrix

Rofiqul Hoque, the appellant, was declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal (FT), Jorhat, Assam, on March 4, 2017 under a reference by the Border Police. The basis: he had allegedly entered India illegally after the cut-off date of March 25, 1971. He contested this decision before the Gauhati High Court, which upheld the FT’s findings. In 2018, however, the petitioner’s name appeared in the draft NRC. He filed an SLP before the Supreme Court, arguing that such inclusion rebutted the FT’s conclusion.

Submissions by the parties

Appellant’s contentions:

• Inclusion in the draft NRC should have overriding effect and demonstrate that the petitioner is not a foreigner.
• The FT and High Court adopted a “pedantic” approach, rejecting evidence on grounds of minor discrepancies in age, name spellings, and address.
• Change in village domicile does not imply change in citizenship.

Respondents (Union of India and Assam government):

• Under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, the burden of proof is on the proceedee.
• NRC inclusion is neither determinative nor binding upon the FT or the State.
• Discrepancies in documentary evidence raised substantial doubts about the petitioner’s claimed lineage.

Legal issues framed by the SC

1. Whether the findings of the FT and the High Court suffered from legal infirmity or ignored credible evidence?
2. Whether inclusion of the appellant’s name in the draft NRC can nullify a prior declaration by an FT?

Court’s Findings: Scrutinising evidence, procedure, and statutory framework

The Court’s reasoning rests on two central legal foundations:

• The burden of proof placed on the alleged foreigner under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
• The non-binding nature of NRC inclusion for persons already declared foreigners, as per the Citizenship Rules, 2003, and the precedent in Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India.

On the merits of evidence and the burden under Section 9: The appellant relied on a combination of official records to establish his Indian citizenship through ancestry:

• Voter lists from 1966, 1970, 1993, 2010, and 2016 purportedly featuring his grandfather (Joynal Abdin), father (Majut Ali), and mother (Sopia Bibi).
• A duplicate school certificate issued in 2014, showing his date of birth as 20.07.1996 and naming his parents.
• An income tax PAN card issued post-2017, and inclusion in the 2018 draft NRC.

Despite this, both the Tribunal and the Gauhati High Court held the petitioner failed to discharge the burden placed on him by Section 9. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stressing that the proceedee must prove:

1. Presence of ancestors in India before March 25, 1971, and
2. His linkage to those ancestors through credible, consistent documents.

The Supreme Court found the petitioner’s case wanting on the following counts:

1. Village discrepancy:

• • The appellant claimed descent from Joynal Abdin of Daobhangi village, Dhubri district.
  • Voter records showed Joynal Abdin in Kekurchar village, Sivasagar district, with no affidavit or evidence explaining this change.
  • There was no plea or corroborative document to establish a migration history, which would have reconciled the apparent inconsistency.

“The Tribunal as well as the High Court have considered these documents and have found that those earlier voter lists relate to a person located in some other village than the one of which the appellant claimed to be a resident. In such circumstances, the appellant ought to have stated in his affidavit, or demonstrated by some documentary evidence, that his ancestors had migrated from that village to the other village where the appellant was reported to be residing, but, according to the Tribunal, there was no such claim by the appellant in his affidavit. Therefore, the Tribunal discarded the probative value of those voter list entries.” (Para 15)

2. Name and lineage doubts:

• • The Court questioned whether Joynal Abdin in 1966 and 1993 voter lists was the same person. Ages did not align; e.g., he was listed as 38 in 1966 and 70 in 1993 (should have been ~65).
  • The father’s name appeared inconsistently, and the mother’s name (Sopia Bibi) was absent in crucial documents.
  • The voter lists also showed unnatural age jumps, e.g., Majut Ali’s age was 30 in 1993 but 45 in 2010—missing consistency.

“Additionally, the High Court noticed that as per the affidavit of the appellant, Joynal Abdin Seikh was a resident of Daobhangi village whereas in the voter list of 1993, Joynal Abdin was shown as a resident of Kekurchar village, which is altogether different from the village of which the appellant claims to be a resident. Further, the High Court noticed that in the 1993 voters list, the name of the mother of the appellant, namely, Sopia Bibi, is conspicuous by its absence.” [Para 5 (vi)]

“As regards the voters list of 2010, the High Court observed that here Majut Ali’s age is shown as 45 years whereas in 1993 list it was 30 years therefore, in the 2010 voters list, it ought to have been 47 years. Besides above, there was a noticeable change in respect of the place of residence because in 1993 list, the village of domicile is shown as Kekurchar whereas in 2010 voter list it is Daobhangi.” [Para 5 (vii)]

3. School certificate deficiency:

• • The certificate was a duplicate, issued ten years after the appellant allegedly left school.
  • No explanation for delay in issuance or production.
  • Crucially, the headmaster was not called to prove its contents, failing the test under the Evidence Act.
  • Hence, the document’s probative value was discounted.

“Interestingly, the school leaving certificate on which heavy reliance was placed by the appellant was also doubted as there appeared no reason for it to have been obtained 10 years after passing from the institution. Moreover, the headmaster of the school was not called for to prove the authenticity of the certificate of which duplicate was produced.” (Para 15)

The Court emphasised that these deficiencies went beyond mere clerical errors. They showed a lack of effort by the appellant to resolve material inconsistencies through affidavit, oral evidence, or additional linkage documents.

On NRC inclusion and its legal consequence: On the question of whether the appellant’s inclusion in the 2018 draft NRC nullified the earlier FT declaration, the Court delivered an unequivocal “No.”

It relied heavily on:

• Rule 4A and Paragraph 3(2) of the Citizenship Rules, 2003, and
• The three-judge bench decision in Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India, (2019) 6 SCC 604.

As noted by the SC in its order, the Citizenship Rules clearly state that:

“…the names of persons who have been declared as illegal migrants or foreigners by the competent authority shall not be included in the consolidated list.” (Para 23)

In para 25–27, the Court emphasised:

• The Registering Authority under NRC has no power to override a quasi-judicial order of a Foreigners Tribunal.
• Even if a person’s name is erroneously included, that inclusion is legally ineffective unless the FT order is reversed by a higher court.
• The “competent authority” under the Citizenship Rules refers specifically to the Foreigners Tribunal, not administrative officers.

Therefore, even though the appellant’s name appeared in the draft NRC, the Supreme Court held that:

“In view of the decision of this Court in Abdul Kuddus (supra), firstly, consequent to the declaration by the Tribunal that appellant is a foreigner, the name of the appellant could not have been included in the draft NRC and, secondly, even if it has been included, it would not annul the declaration made by the Tribunal.” (Para 27)

This closed the door on the appellant’s attempt to claim citizenship via NRC inclusion.

4. Final holding and consequences

After a detailed evaluation of both factual inconsistencies and legal standards, the Supreme Court held as follows:

• The FT’s findings, as affirmed by the Gauhati High Court, were not legally flawed, arbitrary, or perverse.
• The appellant’s inclusion in the draft NRC had no legal effect, given his prior declaration as a foreigner.
• The appellant had failed to prove his Indian citizenship, either by establishing consistent lineage or through rebutting the FT declaration.
• The interim release order granted in 2019 (based on NRC inclusion) was vacated.

“In light of the discussion above, and our conclusions on the issues referred to above, we are of the view that there is no merit in this appeal. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. The release order which was passed at an interim stage stands discharged. Consequently, the appellant shall be treated and dealt with as a foreigner.” (Para 30)

Notably, it is imperative to highlight here that the Court refrained from commenting on whether the NRC itself was legally flawed or reliable. Its approach was purely technical: an FT order, once passed, takes precedence unless overturned by a superior court—not by administrative inclusion.

The complete judgment may be read below.

Previous judicial treatment of documentary discrepancies

While the Supreme Court in Rofiqul Hoque adopted a stringent approach, other judgments have demonstrated a more nuanced understanding of documentary discrepancies, recognising the challenges faced by individuals in rural and marginalized communities.

1. Anuwar Hussain @ Md. Anowar Hussain v. Union of India & Ors. (Gauhati High Court, 2014)

In this case, the petitioner was declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal due to discrepancies in his father’s name across various documents. The Tribunal noted variations such as “Samed Ali,” “Abdul Samed,” and “Samed.” The Gauhati High Court bench led by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan had observed that such variations are common in rural areas, particularly among the Muslim community, and held that these discrepancies were not significant enough to draw an adverse inference regarding the petitioner’s citizenship.

“In so far discrepancy in the name of petitioner’s father is concerned, it is a common phenomenon in rural areas, more particularly among people of Muslim community, to have more than one name or there being variation in the name such as in the name of the petitioner’s father. The discrepancy in the name as noticed- Samed Ali, Abdul Samed and Samed, is not so great as to draw adverse inference regarding the citizenship of the petitioner. On the ground of there being such discrepancy in the name of petitioner’s father, petitioner could not have been declared as a foreigner.” (Para 11)

The Court also addressed discrepancies in the petitioner’s age, noting that minor differences in age declarations are expected in rural settings and should not be the sole basis for declaring someone a foreigner.

2. Mamata Bhowmik v. Union of India & Ors. (Gauhati High Court, 2019)

The petitioner was declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal, which rejected a certified copy of the 1966 voter list on the grounds that it lacked a physical signature and did not comply with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The Gauhati High Court found that the Tribunal erred in its assessment, noting that the document was digitally signed and legally valid under the Information Technology Act, 2000.

“The certified copy also contains a further note that the certificate is digitally signed and, therefore, needs no physical signature… the certificate is legally valid under the Information Technology Act, 2000.” (Para 3)

The Court emphasized the need for Tribunals to consider the authenticity and legal validity of documents, even when presented in digital form, and set aside the Tribunal’s order.

3. Sirajul Hoque v. State of Assam (Supreme Court of India, 2019)

In this case, the appellant was declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal due to discrepancies in the spelling of his grandfather’s name and differences in the villages listed in various documents. The Supreme Court bench of Justices Rohinton Nariman and Vineet Saran, however, found that the appellant had successfully established his lineage through consistent documentation of his father’s and grandfather’s identities, despite minor spelling variations. The Court held that such minor discrepancies did not undermine the credibility of the appellant’s claim to citizenship.

“Having gone through these documents, we are of the view that it is not possible to state that Kematullah is not the same despite being named Kefatullah in some of the documents. This being so, the grandfather’s identity, father’s identity etc. has been established successfully by the appellant. Further, the mere fact that the father may later have gone to another village is no reason to doubt this document.” (Para 4)

The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and the Foreigners Tribunal, thereby affirming the appellant’s Indian citizenship.

4. Mohammad Iddrish Ali v. Union of India & Ors. (Gauhati High Court, 2020)

In this case, the petitioner was declared a foreigner despite submitting multiple documents, including voter lists from 1965 and 1970 bearing his father’s and uncle’s names. The Tribunal disregarded these documents, citing the absence of the petitioner’s name in the 1975 voter list. The Gauhati High Court bench of Justices Manojit Bhuyan and Parthivjyoti Saikia found that the Tribunal committed an error in appreciating the evidence and emphasized that strict rules of evidence are not applicable in Tribunal proceedings.

“Reverting to the case in hand, the strict rules of evidence are not applicable in a tribunal. Nothing is required to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt.”

The Court set aside the Tribunal’s order and directed a fresh opinion, highlighting the importance of a holistic assessment of evidence in such cases.

5. Jagat Bahadur Chetri v. Union of India & Ors. (Gauhati High Court, 2023)

An 85-year-old resident of Assam was declared a foreigner based on a reference by an election official, despite evidence of his birth in Assam in 1937 and decades of service as a civilian employee in the military. The Gauhati High Court criticised the “non-application of mind” by the election official and set aside the Tribunal’s ruling, ordering compensation for the petitioner.

“If Jagat Bahadur Chetri was born in the year 1937 and his place of birth is Dibrugarh and there is no material that subsequent to his birth, he migrated to the specified territory and thereafter re-entered the State of Assam subsequent to 25.03.1971, we are of the view that it was an absolute non-application of mind on the part of the ERO of 52 Dispur Legislative Assembly Constituency to have referred the petitioner to the Foreigners Tribunal for an opinion as to whether the petitioner Jagat Bahadur Chetri is a foreigner who entered the State of Assam subsequent to 25.03.1971 from the specified territory.” (Para 4)

“It appears that the enquiring officer had not done its duty in the proper earnest and there can be no reason why the petitioner Jatat Bahadur Chetri would refuse to divulge the information that he was serving in Indian Army since 1963.” (Para 5)

“However, for causing inconvenience to the petitioner without any reasonable cause and without any application of mind, a cost of Rs. 10, 000/- (rupees ten thousand) is imposed on the ERO of 52 Dispur Legislative Assembly Constituency to be paid to the petitioner.” (Para 7)

This case highlights the importance of due diligence and the consideration of an individual’s lifelong ties to the country in citizenship determinations.

6.  Rahim Ali @ Abdur Rahim v. State of Assam & Ors. (Supreme Court of India, 2024)

In this case, the appellant was declared a foreigner based on minor discrepancies in the spelling of names and dates in official documents. The Supreme Court bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed that such variations are common and often arise due to differences in language, pronunciation, and clerical errors. The Court emphasized that these minor inconsistencies should not be the sole basis for declaring someone a foreigner.

“As far as the discrepancy (ies) in dates and spellings are concerned, we are of the view that the same are minor in nature. Variation in name spelling is not a foreign phenomenon in preparation of the Electoral Roll. Further, the Electoral Roll has no acceptance in the eyes of law insofar as proof of date of birth is concerned. A casual entry by the enumerators when noting and entering the name(s) and dates of birth(s) as also the address(es) of the person(s) while making preparatory surveys for the purposes of preparing the Electoral Rolls cannot visit the appellant with dire consequences. Moreover, in our country, sometimes a title is prefixed or suffixed to a name such that the same person may be known also by one or two aliases. The Tribunal seems to have been totally oblivious to all this.” (Para 41)

“The State of Assam, as per the Census 2011, boasts of 72.19% literacy rate, with females at 66.27% and males at 77.85%. However, this was not the case during the 1960s or even 1970s. Not just in Assam but in many States, it is seen that names of people, even on important government documents can have and do have varied spellings depending on them being in English or Hindi or Bangla or Assamese or any other language, for that matter. Moreover, names of persons which are written either by the persons preparing the Voters List or by the personnel making entries into different Government records, the spelling of the name, based upon its pronunciation, may take on slight variations. It is not uncommon throughout India that different spellings may be written in the regional/vernacular language and in English. Such/same person will have a differently spelt name in English and the local language. This is more pronounced where due to specific pronunciation habits or styles there can be different spellings for the same name in different languages.” (Para 42)

“In the considered opinion of this Court, the same would further buttress the appellant’s claim, that not being in the wrong, and being an ignorant person, he, truthfully and faithfully produced the official records as they were in his possession. We do not see any attempt by the appellant to get his official records prepared meticulously without any discrepancy. The conduct of an illegal migrant would not be so casual.” (Para 43)

The Court also highlighted that the authorities must have a material basis for initiating proceedings under the Foreigners Act and that arbitrary or baseless suspicions cannot justify such actions. Consequently, the Court quashed the orders of the Foreigners Tribunal and the High Court, restoring the appellant’s citizenship. (Detailed analysis of the same judgment may be read here.)

Tightening the evidentiary threshold?

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Rofiqul Hoque v. Union of India underscores a marked shift toward evidentiary stringency in citizenship adjudication under the Foreigners Act, 1946. By upholding the findings of the Foreigners Tribunal and the Gauhati High Court, the Court reasserted two core principles: (1) that the burden of proof lies squarely on the proceedee under Section 9, and (2) that inclusion in the NRC—particularly a draft list—does not override a quasi-judicial declaration of foreign status.

What makes this decision legally significant is its departure from earlier jurisprudence that acknowledged the lived realities of individuals from rural and marginalized communities—realities that often produce inconsistencies in names, ages, and addresses in official records. Judgments such as Sirajul Hoque, Md. Rahim Ali, and Md. Anuwar Hussain adopted a more flexible, contextual reading of documentary discrepancies. In contrast, Rofiqul Hoque takes a formalistic approach, requiring strict evidentiary coherence even when documentary irregularities might stem from administrative lapses rather than wilful deceit.

This evolving judicial posture has far-reaching implications. It raises the evidentiary threshold for proving citizenship, heightens the risk of wrongful exclusion, and underscores the primacy of FT decisions over NRC data, regardless of administrative errors or procedural opacity in the latter. Going forward, both legal practitioners and claimants must place greater emphasis on reconciling all documentary inconsistencies through affidavits, oral testimony, and corroborative records.

In essence, Rofiqul Hoque reinforces the authority of Foreigners Tribunals and sets a cautionary precedent: in the current legal regime, technical lapses—even those reasonably explained—may carry irrevocable consequences for individuals seeking to prove their citizenship in Assam.

Image Courtesy: scobserver.in

Related:

From Detention to Deportation: The mass deportations and detention crisis at Assam’s Matia centre

Restoring Citizenship, Rebuilding Lives: CJP continues its journey in Assam

Declared Foreigner, buried Indian: The tragic death of Abdul Matleb in Assam’s detention camp

SC: Only 10 deported, 33 of 63 contest foreigner status from the Matia Transit Camp, Assam

The post Supreme Court and the Rofiqul Hoque Judgment: A new chapter in Assam’s citizenship jurisprudence on discrepancies in documentary evidence appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This operation starkly highlights India’s growing use of extrajudicial “pushbacks” as a tool to circumvent the complexities of refugee protection, legal detention, and diplomatic engagement. Such actions potentially violate both India’s obligations under international refugee and human rights law, as well as its own legal safeguards for stateless persons and asylum seekers. The refusal of Bangladesh and Myanmar to accept these vulnerable individuals formally has seemingly led India to adopt a policy of indirect expulsion—placing the burden of care onto its neighbours.

The scale of the deportations and the lack of public disclosure by Indian authorities raise profound concerns about accountability and due process. No official confirmation has been made public regarding the exact number deported, the legal status of these persons at the time of removal, or whether they were deported through the involvement of their respective governments or international bodies.

Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma’s public endorsement

The clandestine nature of the deportations was partially lifted when Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma confirmed that detainees—including Rohingya refugees and other declared foreigners without pending appeals—were indeed “pushed back” to Bangladesh. Sarma explicitly described the removals as a Government of India “operation” in which Assam was a stakeholder.

As per a report in Deccan Herald, May 12,  Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma has openly confirmed that these pushbacks are not isolated incidents but part of a deliberate and planned “operation” by the Government of India. Speaking to media in Guwahati on May 10, Saturday last, Sarma had said that Rohingyas and other “declared foreigners” without pending legal appeals were sent from the Matia detention centre to cross into Bangladesh.

“Matia is almost free now, with 30–40 people left,” he said according to Deccan Herald, indicating a drastic reduction in the population of the largest detention facility in India, without explaining the mechanisms or legality of these removals. His statement validates what activists and border watchers had feared: that India is undertaking silent deportations of stateless or vulnerable populations, particularly Rohingya, who neither Myanmar nor Bangladesh has agreed to take back formally.

His framing of the pushbacks as an operational success obscures the severe humanitarian and legal questions at stake—particularly the forced expulsion of stateless persons who have neither been formally recognised as refugees nor granted safe resettlement options. Sarma’s statement also reflects a broader policy shift in Assam and India, characterised by increasingly punitive approaches toward those labelled “foreigners,” with little regard for rights or rehabilitative processes.

What does the on-the-ground data say?

Independent data gathered by the Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) Assam team sheds important light on the evolving reality at the Matia detention centre:

• According to local investigation by our CJP team, all but one of the Convicted Foreign Nationals (CFNs) previously held at Matia have been “pushed back” or deported, leaving only a single Nigerian national, namely Kamardeen Oaladeji Oladimeji, still detained.
• The precise number of deportees remains undisclosed by authorities; however, earlier records indicated 203 CFNs held in Matia. Excluding the one Nigerian detainee, this implies that 202 individuals have been ‘removed’ (read deported)—presumably without transparent, lawful deportation procedures. Details of those in Matia deportation centre may be read here.
• In addition to CFNs, there remain 46 Declared Foreign Nationals (DFNs) at Matia, individuals who have been declared foreigners by Assam’s Foreigners Tribunals but who currently have appeals pending in the High Court or Supreme Court.
• Importantly, our experience at CJP, through ground level investigations, notes that most DFNs are Indian citizens who have been wrongfully declared foreigners, often due to flawed tribunal proceedings or inadequate documentation. These persons should not be treated as deportable foreigners but must be reintegrated into Indian society through proper legal mechanisms.
• One case being fought in the High Court by CJP involves Ajabha Khatoun, a woman wrongly declared a foreigner who faces deportation despite her Indian citizenship claims. On March 3, 2025, the Gauhati High Court’s issued stayed the deportation of Ajabha Khatun, currently lodged in the Matia detention camp of Assam after she was arrested in September 2024.
• The CJP team’s human rights works and humanitarian work, raises critical doubts over whether these pushbacks constitute official deportations involving diplomatic channels, or instead represent unlawful forced expulsions. No public confirmation has been found that these CFNs were formally repatriated through their respective embassies or governments.

This information underlines a troubling reality: India’s deportation machinery at Matia appears to prioritise mass removals over legal protections, transparency, or rehabilitation.

The Case of the Nigerian languishing in Matia: Illegal detention and judicial intervention

In the midst of the mass deportations, the protracted detention of the remaining one Nigerian national, Kamardeen Oaladeji Oladimeji, stands as a stark symbol of systemic failure. Oladimeji has been held at the Matia detention centre for 1,457 days beyond his legally mandated sentence.

“Therefore, it is seen that by the time the order and sentence was passed, the petitioner had already served his sentence as on 13.05.2021. Thus, as on the date of this order, the petitioner has spent 1457 days in illegal detention.” (Para 3)

Convicted in 2021 for offences under the Foreigners Act and the Passports (Entry into India) Rules, Oladimeji had served his six-month imprisonment and paid the fines by May 2021. Yet the state continued to detain him unlawfully without initiating repatriation or granting release, as per a report of LiveLaw.

Recognising the gross illegality, a division bench of the Gauhati High Court issued a strong order directing Assam and central authorities to facilitate his immediate repatriation on May 9, 2025. The Court noted that failure to do so would compel it to release Oladimeji unconditionally, at the risk and cost of the state.

“The State as well as the appropriate authorities in the Home & Political (B) Department, Govt. of Assam; Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs; and the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of External Affairs shall specifically take note of the fact that the sentence of the petitioner was served on 13.05.2021 and therefore, the petitioner is in illegal detention for 1457 days. Therefore, if the appropriate actions are not taken within the due time, the said authorities are put to notice that the Court would be compelled to release the petitioner unconditionally, which would be at the risk and cost of the said authorities.” (Para 9)

Significantly, the Nigerian Embassy has shown readiness to issue an Emergency Travel Certificate upon a video interview, which could be facilitated by the Matia camp authorities. Despite this, bureaucratic inertia and inter-agency delay have perpetuated his illegal incarceration.

Oladimeji’s case starkly illustrates the human cost of systemic indifference and the breakdown of procedural justice in India’s detention centres—where individuals are trapped beyond their sentences due to administrative paralysis and policy neglect.

The complete order may be read below.

A Legal and ethical red Line: The risk of violating non-refoulement

The secrecy and speed of deportations from Matia detention centre raise serious concerns about India’s compliance with international legal obligations, particularly the principle of non-refoulement — a norm that prohibits returning individuals to territories where they may face threats to life, liberty, or persecution.

Although India is not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol, non-refoulement is widely recognised as a principle of customary international law, binding on all nations irrespective of ratification. Moreover, India is a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which under Article 7 prohibits cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment — a protection that logically extends to any deportation that risks exposing someone to such harm.

Indian Constitutional courts have historically affirmed these principles:

• In Ktaer Abbas Habib Al Qutaifi v. Union of India (1999), the Gujarat High Court held that Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and liberty, protects refugees and asylum seekers from being forcibly returned to unsafe conditions.
• In Dongh Lian Kham v. Union of India (Delhi High Court, 2010), the Court explicitly recognised the principle of non-refoulement as part of the constitutional guarantee under Article 21.
• In Nandita Haksar v. State of Manipur (2021), the Manipur High Court permitted Myanmarese nationals fleeing a coup to meet the UNHCR in Delhi, reaffirming India’s obligations under international humanitarian law and its adherence to non-refoulement even outside the refugee treaty framework.

However, recent developments signal a regression.

In May 2025, the Supreme Court of India, while hearing petitions challenging the detention and deportation of Rohingya refugees from Delhi in the case of Jaffar Ullah and Anr. v. U.O.I And Ors, refused to stay their removal. The Court stated that the right to reside in India belongs only to citizens, and thus deportation of non-citizens did not infringe on fundamental rights. The ruling echoed earlier observations in Mohammad Salimullah v. Union of India, where the Court maintained that while non-citizens are entitled to certain constitutional protections (like Articles 14 and 21), they do not have a guaranteed right against deportation — even if the risks upon return are well-documented.

This narrowing interpretation of constitutional protections in cases involving stateless persons and asylum seekers directly undermines the spirit of non-refoulement, and sets a dangerous precedent. It opens the door for the executive to expel individuals without fully evaluating the risk of persecution, torture, or arbitrary detention — outcomes that are extremely likely for groups like the Rohingyas, or individuals expelled without nationality documents.

The situation unfolding in Assam, with individuals being pushed across the border without diplomatic coordination or legal review, cannot be seen as lawful deportation. It is closer to extrajudicial expulsion, and when applied to stateless or persecuted communities, it may constitute a violation of international law, constitutional rights, and basic principles of justice.

The Broader implications: Statelessness, human rights, and the erosion of due process

Together, these developments expose a deeply troubling pattern in India’s approach to foreigners and refugees in Assam, especially Rohingya and Bengali-speaking Muslims:

• The conflation of statelessness with criminality leads to indefinite detention and mass pushbacks that violate fundamental human rights and international legal standards.
• The Foreigners Tribunals in Assam, widely criticised for lack of due process, continue to declare hundreds of individuals foreigners—many wrongfully—subjecting them to detention and the risk of forcible removal.
• Deportations executed without diplomatic agreements or proper notifications amount to illegal “pushbacks”, shifting responsibility onto neighbouring countries ill-equipped to absorb such persons.
• The opacity and lack of accountability in these processes undermines public trust, violates constitutional guarantees of liberty, and renders invisible the suffering of those caught in legal limbo.
• The Government’s eagerness to “empty” Matia detention centre is a hollow metric if it rests on forced expulsion rather than lawful deportation or rehabilitation.
• The persistence of cases like Oladimeji’s reflects systemic failures to honour judicial mandates, international obligations, and the rights of detainees.

As Assam’s Matia detention centre becomes a symbol of secrecy, cruelty, and administrative impunity, the urgent need for transparency and judicial oversight cannot be overstated. The stories emerging from behind its high walls—of coerced deportations, prolonged illegal detentions, and disregard for basic human rights—reveal a deeper rot in India’s treatment of migrants and refugees. Upholding the Constitution means more than rhetoric; it requires an unwavering commitment to legal due process, dignity, and non-discrimination. Civil society, courts, and the media must refuse to look away. What is at stake is not just the fate of a few individuals, but the very soul of a democracy that claims to abide by the rule of law. Ultimately, the crisis at Matia detention centre is not merely an administrative issue. It is emblematic of a broader crisis of justice, humanity, and the rule of law—where the most vulnerable populations become collateral damage in nationalist and securitisation agendas.

Related:

Restoring Citizenship, Rebuilding Lives: CJP continues its journey in Assam

Declared Foreigner, buried Indian: The tragic death of Abdul Matleb in Assam’s detention camp

A jumla or a concrete step? Assam CM’s announcement on Koch Rajbongshi cases raises more questions than answers

SC: Only 10 deported, 33 of 63 contest foreigner status from the Matia Transit Camp, Assam

The post Pushed Out of Sight: The covert deportation and detention crisis at Assam’s Matia detention centre appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A victory against injustice

After months of relentless efforts by CJP’s legal team, the Foreigners Tribunal finally ruled in Micharan Bibi’s favour, officially declaring her an Indian citizen. The tribunal recorded evidence on March 14, 2024 and February 15, 2024, during which Micharan Bibi and her witnesses testified. The final arguments were heard on November 5, 2024, and the tribunal delivered its order on December 10, 2024.

The moment she received the judgment, she was overwhelmed with emotion. “I am an Indian, yet they harassed me! For a year, I couldn’t sleep or eat properly, but you always stood by me,” she said tearfully, expressing gratitude to the CJP team for their unwavering support.

To commemorate this hard-fought victory, representatives from CJP’s Team Assam, including Assam State Incharge Nanda Ghosh and legal team members Advocate Dewan Abdur Rahim and Sohidul Hussain, visited Micharan’s home to personally hand over the official order copy. Their presence underscored the significance of this triumph—not just for Micharan, but for all those who continue to face similar challenges.

Who is Micharan Bibi?

Micharan Bibi was born around 1950 to Kasem Ali (also known as Kasem or Kasam Ali) and Daliman Bibi (also known as Daliman) in Salmara Gaon, a village that was originally part of Bijni Police Station but now falls under Manikpur Police Station in Bongaigaon District, Assam (formerly part of undivided Goalpara). She spent her childhood and early years in the same village.

Her father passed away around 1980, followed by her mother’s death in 1981.

In 1971, Micharan Bibi married Abdul Khalek, son of Mahej Sheikh, from Salmara Gaon. After marriage, she moved in with her husband and his family in the same village, where she continued to reside under Manikpur Police Station, Bongaigaon District, Assam.

A nightmare unfolds

Micharan Bibi’s ordeal began when she received a shocking notice from the authorities in 2022, accusing her of being an illegal entrant, a foreigner. This notice came nearly 18 years after the case was registered in 2004, exposing a serious procedural lapse. The notice was also barred by limitation. The initial 2004 investigation was also found on examination to have inherent flaws as several such “preliminary investigations” and “inquiries” have been found to. Reports are often filed without any efforts from the Assam border police of thorough investigation or verification of facts, and the same applied in Micharan Bibi’s case too.

The notice instilled deep fear and anxiety in her, disrupting her daily life and leaving her sleepless and unable to eat properly.

The case against her was fraught with serious procedural lapses. It was Micharan’s claim that the investigating officer (I/O) responsible for verifying her citizenship submitted a fabricated inquiry report without conducting any proper investigation. The officer neither visited Micharan’s residence nor interviewed any witnesses. Instead, the report was based on false statements, making baseless allegations against her. Throughout the process, Micharan consistently denied the accusations, asserting her rightful Indian citizenship.

Team CJP Assam with Micharan Bibi outside her home

CJP’s legal intervention and the fight for justice

Recognising the injustice she faced, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) stepped in to provide Micharan with much-needed legal aid and support. CJP’s legal team of Assam meticulously built her defence, challenging the flawed I/O report and presenting irrefutable evidence proving her Indian citizenship.

One of the key arguments presented by CJP’s legal team was that Micharan’s name appeared on the electoral rolls—an undeniable indicator of Indian citizenship. Additionally, they provided substantial documentary proof, including records establishing her family’s long-standing presence in India. Her parents’ and grandparents’ names were found in both voter lists and land records, reinforcing her legitimate status as a citizen by birth and also of being a permanent resident of Assam.

Moreover, CJP’s lawyers pointed out a significant legal lapse: the case against Micharan was time-barred and limited by delay. Although it had been registered in 2004, she was only served the notice in 2022—an unacceptable delay under the law.

Enduring hardship: A road accident amidst the legal struggle

As if the legal battle was not distressing enough, Micharan suffered a severe setback when she was involved in a road accident while traveling to attend proceedings at the Foreigners Tribunal. The accident resulted in serious injuries to her legs and hands, leaving her bedridden for nearly two months. Her already fragile emotional state worsened as she endured immense physical pain while simultaneously battling the system to reclaim both her identity and dignity.

Details of the order of the Foreigners Tribunal

The Foreigners Tribunal No.1, Bongaigaon, Assam, delivered its order on December 10, 2024, declaring Micharan Bibi, wife of the late Abdul Khalek and daughter of the late Kasem Ali, to be an Indian citizen. This case arose from a reference made under Rule 2(1) of the Foreigners’ (Tribunal) Order, 1964, wherein the tribunal was required to determine whether Micharan Bibi was a foreigner who entered Assam after March 25, 1971. The proceedings were based on the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946, under which the burden of proving citizenship rests on the person accused of being a foreigner.

During the proceedings, Micharan Bibi presented fourteen crucial documents in support of her claim of being an Indian citizen. These included an extract from the 1951 National Register of Citizens (NRC) listing her grandfather, father, mother, and aunt, as well as certified copies of voter lists from 1966, 1971, 1997, 2006, 2011, 2015, and 2022, documenting her family’s continuous residence in Assam and her own inclusion as a voter.

Additionally, she submitted her Electoral Photo Identity Card (EPIC), a Panchayat Certificate from the Secretary of No. 4 Nowapara Gaon Panchayat confirming her long-standing residency, and a School Certificate dated March 22, 1994, issued by the Head Teacher of Barbakhara L.P. School, which verified her studies and confirmed her father’s identity as Kasem Ali.

The tribunal examined whether Micharan Bibi had successfully proven two key points: that she was the daughter of Kasem Ali and Daliman Bibi and that her parents were Indian citizens residing in Assam before March 25, 1971. The tribunal relied heavily on her School Certificate, which listed her as the daughter of Kasem Ali of Salmara village, a fact corroborated by the school’s admission register from 1956. Furthermore, voter lists from 1966 and 1971 containing her parents’ names solidified her claim of lineage. The 1951 NRC entry, along with the voter lists, established that her father and mother had been residents of Assam well before the cut-off date, making them Indian citizens. Since Micharan Bibi was their daughter, she too was deemed an Indian citizen by birth. The tribunal also noted that she had consistently participated in elections from 1971 onwards, even after the case had been registered against her, further reinforcing her status as a legitimate Indian citizen.

After considering all the evidence, the tribunal ruled that Micharan Bibi had successfully discharged the burden of proof required under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. It concluded that she was not a foreigner and had been wrongfully accused of being an illegal migrant.

This case underscores the systemic failures in Assam’s citizenship verification process, where individuals, particularly from marginalised communities, are often wrongly accused of being foreigners due to procedural errors and fabricated reports. The judgment not only restores Micharan Bibi’s legal identity and dignity but also highlights the critical role of legal intervention in preventing wrongful exclusions. Her case sets a significant precedent for others facing similar challenges under Assam’s Foreigners Tribunal system.

The order can be viewed here.

The broader impact of CJP’s work

CJP’s relentless efforts in Assam have provided a lifeline to hundreds of individuals and families trapped in the quagmire of Assam’s citizenship crisis. With a dedicated network of community volunteers, district-level motivators, and legal professionals, CJP offers paralegal assistance, legal counselling, and full-fledged legal representation to those unfairly accused of being foreigners.

In Micharan Bibi’s case, CJP’s legal team left no stone unturned in their fight to establish the truth. Their dedication ensured that an elderly woman, unjustly branded as a foreigner, was finally able to reclaim her rightful place as an Indian citizen.

Her story stands as a powerful reminder of the ongoing battle for justice in Assam. It exemplifies the impact of committed advocacy in defending the rights of the marginalised and resisting systemic injustices. As Micharan poignantly stated, “I may not be able to give you anything in return, but the Almighty will bless all of you.”

CJP’s work continues, one case at a time, bringing hope to those left vulnerable by a deeply flawed system and reaffirming the fundamental right to citizenship and dignity for all.

Related:

Relentless Pursuit of Justice: CJP’s Advocacy for Citizenship Rights in Assam

CJP triumphs in securing bail for Assam’s Sahid Ali: A step towards restoring citizenship

Tragic victory: Citizenship restored for Assam’s Sabaruddin after his passing

Assam citizenship crisis: Aadhaar unlocked, lives shackled

The post Citizen, Not Foreigner: Micharan Bibi’s citizenship restored after year-long battle appeared first on SabrangIndia.

However, Justice J.B. Pardiwala dissented, arguing that Section 6A should be struck down for “temporal unreasonableness,” as it no longer serves its original purpose and instead causes more harm.

This article delves into the judgement and reasoning employed by both the majority judgement and the minority opinion in arriving at their respective decisions. A detailed background becomes necessary to understand the judgement better.

The Constitutional provisions on Citizenship:

Part II- Articles 6-11 deal with Citizenship under Indian constitution. Article 5 deals with Citizenship at the commencement of Constitution, Article 6 deals with Rights of Citizenship of Certain Persons who have migrated to India from Pakistan with cut-off date for being deemed as a citizen set as July 19, 1948. Article 7 states that no person who migrated to Pakistan after March 1, 1947 shall be deemed to be a citizen of India.

Article 10 of the Constitution states that every person who is or is deemed to be a citizen of India under this part i.e., Part II—subject to the provisions of any law made by the Parliament—would continue to be such citizen.

Article 11 of the Constitution states that this part i.e., Part II does not take any power away from the Parliament to make any provision with respect to the acquisition and termination of Citizenship and all other matters relating to Citizenship. Essentially, the Parliament has extensive powers vis-à-vis Citizenship.

Article 29 of the Constitution deals with the protection of interests of minorities. It states that any section of citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a district script of culture of its ow shall have the right to conserve the same.

Assam Accord and the Citizenship Challenge

The Assam Accord is a significant agreement signed in 1985 between the Government of India and various student and political groups in Assam, aimed at addressing the issue of illegal immigration. The backdrop to the Accord includes the Bangladesh War of 1971, which led to a massive influx of refugees into India, particularly in Assam, resulting in demographic changes that caused anxiety among the indigenous Assamese population. The growing resentment towards illegal immigration sparked the Assam Agitation, a movement led by the All Assam Students’ Union (AASU) from 1979 to 1985, demanding the deportation of illegal migrants. In response to the unrest, the Indian government negotiated with movement leaders, culminating in the signing of the Assam Accord on August 15, 1985. The Accord established a cut-off date of March 25, 1971, for identifying illegal immigrants, stating that those who entered Assam after this date would be deported, while those who entered before would be granted citizenship.

Pursuant to this accord, Section 6A was added to the Citizenship Act, 1955 via the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985, and the petitioners challenged this very Section 6A.

The Section grants citizenship to persons of Indian origin who migrated to Assam from Bangladesh. The provision classifies the class of migrants into two categories based on when they entered Assam: those who entered Assam before January 1, 1966 and those who came to Assam after January 1, 1966 but before 25 March 1971.

Provisions under Challenge

Section 6A (2) Conditions- Deemed Citizen of India

Section 6A (3) Conditions-Register to be a Citizen of India

The difference in rights between these two categories of people was that the person who has been registered for Citizenship under Section 6A (3) would be able to have their name included in the electoral roll after 10 years of their registration. Other than this, persons who became Citizens under Section 6A (3) will have same rights as those who became citizens under Section 6A(2).

Issues:

The core issue was the challenge to Section 6A, which is argued to violate the following Articles of the Constitution:

Petitioners’ Arguments

On Legislative Competence

The petitioners argued that as far as Bangladesh is concerned, it was a part of Pakistan at the time of amendment of the Constitution and for citizenship of people from the territories of Pakistan, the Constitution has Articles 6 and 7 which prescribes cut-off dates for people coming into India from Pakistan. Therefore, allowing migrants from Bangladesh and deeming them citizens was only possible via an amendment of the Constitution and not a Parliamentary legislation i.e., Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985.

On violation of Article 14

The petitioners argued that Section 6A violates Article 14 for three main reasons. First, it is too narrow as it grants citizenship only to migrants in Assam. Second, there is no valid reason for singling out Assam and ignoring other states that border Bangladesh, as these states form a similar group. Third, Section 6A sets a different cut-off date for migrants entering Assam compared to those entering other states.

On violation of Article 355

The petitioners argued that Section 6A violates Article 355 of the Constitution. They claimed that Article 355 places a duty on the Union to protect against external aggression. According to the petitioners, a three-judge bench in Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India interpreted “external aggression” to include aggression caused by external migration. They further argued that, instead of preventing such migration, Section 6A actually encourages more migration into Assam. To support this argument, the petitioners cited the Sarbananda Sonowal judgment, claiming that a law’s constitutionality can be challenged if it violates Article 355.

On violation of Article 29

The petitioners argued that Article 29 of the Constitution protects the rights of endogamous communities, which they claim applies to Assam. They stated that the large influx of illegal migrants from former East Pakistan has caused significant demographic changes, leading to a loss of Assamese culture. They further argued that Article 29(1) gives communities’ full freedom to preserve their cultural identity, which they believe is threatened by the forced imposition of foreign culture through unchecked migration from Bangladesh into Assam.

On temporal unreasonableness

The petitioners argued that Section 6A(3) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 has become unconstitutional over time for several reasons. They claimed it has failed to effectively address illegal immigration, as it has not achieved its goal of identifying and deporting those who entered Assam after March 25, 1971. The lack of a temporal limit makes the provision arbitrary, undermining its original intent to grant citizenship only to immigrants from 1966 to 1971 and impeding efforts to remove illegal immigrants from electoral rolls. Additionally, the passage of time has made it easier for post-1971 immigrants to exploit the provision by forging documents and making false claims, complicating verification as government records deteriorate. The petitioners argued that these factors render Section 6A(3) temporally unreasonable, allowing it to persist indefinitely and contradicting current policies on illegal immigration, thereby incentivizing rather than curbing the issue it was intended to address.

On lack of procedure

The petitioners argued that Section 6A (2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, is unconstitutional because it does not outline a procedure for granting citizenship to immigrants who entered Assam from Bangladesh before January 1, 1966. They contrasted this with Section 6A(3), which specifies a procedure for those who migrated between 1966 and 1971.

The petitioners highlighted that unlike other provisions in the Citizenship Act, such as Sections 3 and 4, which establish registration regimes, Section 6A(2) does not require any registration process for individuals deemed citizens under its provisions. They argue that this lack of procedure creates ambiguity and raises concerns about the arbitrary conferment of citizenship.

Respondents’ Arguments

The respondents argued that Parliament had the legislative authority to enact Section 6A, as Article 11 of the Constitution grants Parliament the power to make laws regarding citizenship, even if they conflict with other provisions. They emphasised that Entry 17 of List I in the Seventh Schedule empowers Parliament to legislate on citizenship matters and refuted the petitioners’ claim that Articles 6 and 7 apply to East Pakistan, asserting that these articles operate in different contexts. Additionally, they contended that Article 14 ensures equality in benefits, not liabilities, justifying the differential treatment of Assam based on its unique historical situation and the Assam Accord. They maintained that a statute cannot be struck down simply for not addressing all classes, as Parliament has discretion in legislating varying degrees of harm.

Regarding temporal unreasonableness, the respondents asserted that Section 6A reflects a constitutional tradition of accommodating differences and that there is an underlying rationale for the cut-off dates, challenging the notion that the provision has lost its original purpose. They further argued that Section 6A reinforces multiculturalism and that demographic shifts are unrelated to the provision. They claimed that Article 21 protects both the Assamese community and the rights of foreigners, asserting that Section 6A is a “procedure established by law.”

The Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) had intervened in the matter. The detailed written submissions made by CJP and a subsequent note submitted to the Court may be read here.

The Judgement

Majority Opinion authored by Justice Surya Kant for himself, and for Justices M.M.Sundresh and Manoj Misra

On competence of Parliament to enact Section 6A

The Court said that Parliament has the power to enact laws concerning citizenship. This power is explicitly granted by Article 11 of the Constitution. Article 11 states that “nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Part shall derogate from the power of Parliament to make any provision with respect to the acquisition and termination of citizenship and all other matters relating to citizenship.” The Court said this language gives Parliament broad powers to create citizenship laws, even if those laws appear to conflict with other provisions in Part II of the Constitution.

The Court also pointed to Entry 17 of List I in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, which states, “Citizenship, naturalisation and aliens,” as further confirmation of Parliament’s authority over citizenship. The Court explained that the final draft of Article 11 was deliberately amended during the drafting process to remove a clause restricting Parliament’s legislative power. The Court said that this amendment shows that the framers of the Constitution intended to give Parliament significant freedom in crafting laws related to citizenship.

On violation of Article 14

The Court’s Analysis of Section 6A and Article 14

The Court said that Section 6A did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. The petitioners had argued that Section 6A unfairly discriminated against the indigenous population of Assam by granting citizenship to immigrants from Bangladesh. This, they argued, created an unreasonable classification that violated Article 14.

The Court recognised the Assam Accord as a valid basis for the differential treatment of Assam. The Court said that the Assam Accord, a political agreement aimed at resolving the longstanding conflict over immigration in Assam, represented a negotiated settlement reflecting the state’s particular challenges.

The Court said that Article 14 permits reasonable classifications, meaning that the law can treat different groups differently as long as there is a justifiable reason for doing so. The Court said that the historical context and the political solution reflected in the Assam Accord provided a legitimate basis for the classification created by Section 6A.

The Court also addressed the argument that Section 6A was “manifestly arbitrary” because the cut-off dates and procedures for granting citizenship were unreasonable. The Court negated this argument, saying that the cut-off dates in Section 6A were carefully chosen based on significant historical events rather than being arbitrary. The date of January 1, 1966, was selected because it represented a key moment regarding immigration in Assam. The Court explained that March 25, 1971, was another important date, coinciding with the start of the Bangladesh Liberation War. On this date, the Prime Minister of Bangladesh promised to return refugees who had fled to India, highlighting the humanitarian issues involved.

The Court emphasized that these dates were not just randomly picked but were the result of thoughtful discussions. The Bangladesh Citizenship (Temporary Provisions) Order of 1972, which granted citizenship retroactively from March 26, 1971, also played a role in recognizing those affected by the war and addressing statelessness. Overall, the Court concluded that the cut-off dates in Section 6A were reasonable and reflected the unique challenges of the time, allowing the law to effectively manage the complexities of immigration in Assam.

On Violation of Article 355

The petitioners claimed that Section 6A violated Article 355 of the Constitution, arguing that granting citizenship to a large number of immigrants could be construed as facilitating “external aggression” and “internal disturbance” within the state of Assam.

However, the court was of the view that 6A being limited in its ambit did not promote or legitimise continuance of migration. 6A rather paves the way for a practical solution to the problem of immigration into Assam by devising an implementable modus operandi, harmonising India’s commitments, international relations and administrative realities.

The judgment further explained that Section 6A was enacted as part of a political solution aimed at resolving the existing conflict and instability in Assam. The court viewed Section 6A as a measure to bring about peace and order in the state rather than a catalyst for further disturbances.

Chief Justice DY Chandrachud’s concurring opinion

1. On violation of Article 29

CJI D.Y. Chandrachud opined that Section 6A does not violate Article 29(1) of the Constitution. He explained that Article 29(1), which guarantees the right of a group of citizens to protect their culture, centers on preventing the state from interfering with a group’s ability to safeguard its own culture. The petitioners argued that Section 6A, by granting citizenship to immigrants from Bangladesh, would dilute the Assamese population and adversely affect Assamese culture.

However, Justice Chandrachud stated that the petitioners did not demonstrate how Section 6A would directly prevent the Assamese people from taking steps to preserve their culture. He noted that the petitioners based their argument on the assumption that an increase in the Bengali population in Assam would harm Assamese culture but did not prove how Section 6A would directly result in this outcome.

Furthermore, he pointed out that Assam has other laws that safeguard Assamese culture, including laws mandating the use of the Assamese language in certain contexts. He also highlighted that the cultural and linguistic interests of the citizens of Assam are protected by constitutional and statutory provisions. Therefore, he concluded that Section 6A does not violate Article 29(1) because it does not obstruct the Assamese people from protecting their culture.

2. On Temporal Unreasonableness

CJI D.Y. Chandrachud opined that Section 6A(3) is not unconstitutional on the grounds of temporal unreasonableness. This legal doctrine posits that a law, even if initially constitutional, may become unconstitutional over time due to changing circumstances.

Justice Chandrachud stated that Section 6A(3) intended to create a lasting solution to the issue of migration from Bangladesh into Assam. While he acknowledged that concerns about the dilution of voting rights for people native to Assam due to the influx of migrants played a role in the Assam Accord, he asserted that addressing this specific issue of identification of migrants was not the only purpose of Section 6A(3). He determined that Section 6A(3) could not be deemed unconstitutional solely due to the passage of time, especially considering that the process of identifying and granting citizenship in Assam is an extensive undertaking that can take decades. He stated as follows:

“The principle of temporal unreasonableness cannot be applied to a situation where the classification is still relevant to the objective of the provision. The process of detection and conferring citizenship in Assam is a long-drawn out process spanning many decades. To strike it down due to lapse of time is to ignore the context and object of the provision”

3. On Lack of Process in Section 6A

CJI D.Y. Chandrachud opined that Section 6A(2) cannot be considered unconstitutional because it does not specify a procedure for registration. He stated that the Citizenship Rules, amended in 1987, implement the provisions of Section 6A(3). These rules outline that if the question of a person’s foreign status arises in proceedings other than those under the Foreigners Act, 1946, the matter must be referred to a Foreigners Tribunal for determination.

Although Justice Chandrachud did not directly address the lack of process in Section 6A(2) as raised by the petitioners, it is important to note that he refuted the claim that Section 6A(2) was unconstitutional due to a lack of process. The majority judgement too noted that the many other rules complement the implementation of Sectio 6A and all of them have to be interpreted as one harmonious code.

The Dissent

Justice Pardiwala’s Dissent: Temporal Unreasonableness and Lack of Procedure in Section 6A

Justice J.B. Pardiwala wrote a dissenting judgment, disagreeing with Justice Surya Kant’s conclusion that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 was constitutionally valid. Justice Pardiwala found Section 6A unconstitutional, arguing that while it might have been constitutional at the time of its enactment in 1985, the provision had become unconstitutional over time.

Justice Pardiwala pointed to the doctrine of temporal reasonableness, a legal principle that suggests a law, while valid at its enactment, may become arbitrary over time due to changing circumstances. He applied this doctrine to analyzeSection 6A(3), which establishes a procedure for determining the citizenship status of immigrants who entered Assam from Bangladesh between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971. If such individuals are found to be “foreigners”, they are deleted from electoral rolls for ten years.

Justice Pardiwala argued that the low number of immigrants actually detected and deemed “foreigners” under this provision suggests the process has become arbitrary and ineffective. He highlighted that over 40 years have passed since the enactment of Section 6A, and the original objective of the ten-year exclusion from electoral rolls has become meaningless as that timeframe has long since passed.

Justice Pardiwala also criticised Section 6A for its lack of a well-defined procedure. He argued that the provision does not adequately address the process of determining “ordinary residence” in Assam, a key factor in determining eligibility for citizenship under Section 6A. He stated that this lack of clarity could lead to arbitrary and discriminatory application of the law.

In emphasizing the need for temporal limits, he underscored that other immigration and citizenship laws in India have inherent temporal limitations. For instance, Paragraph 2(1) of the Foreigners (Tribunal) Order, 1964 stipulates that a foreigners tribunal can only adjudicate on an individual’s citizenship status if a reference is received from a competent authority within a specified timeframe. Similarly, the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 is centeredaround removing immigrants who entered Assam after a specific date.

Therefore, according to Justice Pardiwala, the lack of a specified timeframe within Section 6A, especially when viewed alongside other related laws, creates inconsistencies and renders the provision susceptible to arbitrary implementation. He concluded that Section 6A fails to provide a fair and reasonable process for determining citizenship, leading to discriminatory outcomes for those who migrated to Assam from Bangladesh during the specified period.

Related:

Supreme Court upholds constitutional validity of Section 6A of Citizenship Act in 4:1 verdict, creates permanent bench for adjudication

Assam detention camps tighten rules, leaving families struggling to visit loved ones detained in Matia transit camp

Assam government’s efforts to intensify crackdown on “Suspected/Declared Foreigners” sparks fears of brute targeting & rights denials

Supreme Court seeks Assam government’s response on plan to deport over 200 declared foreigners detained in transit camp

Assam: Partial relief, over 9 lakh people to get Aadhaar card, serious questions for excluded 18 lakh

The post Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 is constitutional, says Supreme Court in a 4:1 Judgement; Justice J.B. Pardiwala dissents appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The citizenship crisis in Assam is a stark reality that has left countless individuals in a state of uncertainty and despair. Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) has engaged with those grappling with the fallout of the NRC process, revealing a deeply fragmented experience: while some individuals have finally gained access to their Aadhaar cards, many others remain in limbo, still awaiting resolution. This dissonance highlights the ongoing bureaucratic chaos and the emotional toll it takes on people, who are often caught between the hope of recognition and the fear of exclusion. The narratives shared by these individuals paint a vivid picture of the anguish that accompanies their struggle for identity and belonging in a landscape fraught with suspicion and legal ambiguity. As families grapple with their precarious status, the reality of this citizenship crisis underscores the urgent need for clarity, accountability, and compassion in addressing the rights and identities of all residents of Assam.

Broken livelihoods and shattered trust

Fazrul Hoque from Dhubri speaks to the CJP Assam team about the human cost behind the state’s administrative failures. Hoque is one of those whose Aadhar has been released by the state government. “My company didn’t transfer my salary because I didn’t have an Aadhaar. For five years, I had to use someone else’s account, and now I am fined for it. Getting my Aadhaar now is a relief, but these years of harassment—financial and mental—cannot be erased.”

Struggles of rural Assam: abureaucratic nightmare

Others, like Tanmoy Saha, remain trapped in limbo. His biometrics may have been unlocked, but his Aadhaar is still “in process.” For five long years, Tanmoy has faced numerous obstacles due to the delay. “It’s just another bureaucratic hurdle,” he shares with palpable disappointment.

Hasina Khaoon and Ariful Islam from Darrang district reflect similar frustrations. Both continue to wait for their Aadhaar cards, even after the unlocking of biometrics. “I’ve been stuck for five years because of the NRC biometrics issue,” Ariful says, clearly exhausted. “Others in the same situation have already received their Aadhaar cards, but I am still waiting.”

For many, it wasn’t just about the prolonged wait. The bureaucratic hurdles added a level of trauma, as people were forced to navigate confusing processes with little clarity or help. Noreja Begum from Chirang district recalls the additional distress of losing her biometric enrolment document during the NRC process. This led to a further delay in her Aadhaar issuance. “I couldn’t have done it without the help of CJP. They supported me through the process, and I finally have my Aadhaar, but it has been an extremely difficult journey.”

Daily life on hold: price of locked biometrics

Access to Aadhaar is more than just a document for many. It represents survival and dignity. Rina Ghosh, a mid-day meal worker earning a meagre Rs.1,000 a month, reveals how the locked Aadhaar barred her from basic government benefits. “I was eligible for Orunodoi, free rice, and MPAY housing. But because my Aadhaar was locked, I was denied these essential benefits.” The impact of this deprivation has been particularly severe in rural Assam, where government welfare schemes form a critical safety net for many families.

For others, the damage extends to their political rights as well. Anowara Khatoon from Goalpara finds herself doubly marginalised. Her voter list status is marked ‘D’ (Doubtful voter), stripping her of her right to vote, and her Aadhaar, which was delayed by the NRC process, is finally here—but the name is incorrect. “I feel like I am invisible to the system,” she says.

Humanitarian intervention and accountability

In the face of a broken system, civil and legal rights organisations like Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) have stepped up to help. CJP’s field team member, Habibul Bepari, recounts the stories of numerous families who were unaware of their Aadhaar status because their biometrics were locked. “One family had even lost their documents and enrolment numbers,” Bepari recalls. “We helped them retrieve the details and provided them with digital Aadhaar. The relief on their faces was overwhelming.”

But relief is not enough. Nanda Ghosh, CJP’s Assam State In charge, raises the pressing question of accountability. “Over 27 lakh people had their biometrics locked during the NRC update. For five years, they were denied Aadhaar, a basic document to which they are entitled under Aadhaar rules, which state that anyone residing in India for 182 days is eligible. What was their crime?” Ghosh asks pointedly. “The government has announced that 9 lakh people will now get their Aadhaar. But what about the remaining 18 lakh? And for the 9 lakh—don’t they deserve compensation for the injustice they endured?”

An administrative labyrinth

On August 28, 2024, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma announced that the central government had decided to unlock the biometrics of 9.35 lakh people, which were locked during the NRC (National Register of Citizens) process. This would finally allow them access to Aadhaar cards, enabling them to benefit from government welfare schemes like scholarships and social assistance programs. But for many, the question remains—why did it take so long?

The delay in issuing Aadhaar cards apparently stems from a misunderstanding of a Supreme Court order. In 2019, when people excluded from the NRC draft were allowed to appeal, the Assam government collected their biometric data in collaboration with the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). The rationale was to prevent those excluded from the final NRC from obtaining Aadhaar, as Assamese nationalist groups feared that “illegal migrants” would misuse the document—even though Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship.

As per a report of Scroll, in 2022, Rajya Sabha MP Sushmita Dev filed a public interest litigation in the Supreme Court requesting that Aadhaar cards be issued to individuals included in the NRC who had not yet been assigned unique identity numbers. In response to the petition, the union government had informed the Supreme Court on October 13, 2022, that individuals included in the final NRC would receive an Aadhaar number according to the standard operating procedures approved by the Court. However, the union government had also stated that it had withheld the issuance of Aadhaar cards for these individuals because the application receipt numbers from the NRC process had not been provided to the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). As per the report of Scroll, this information is documented in an affidavit reviewed by them.

CJP’s petition on denial of Aadhaar linked to NRC in the Gauhati High Court

In 2022, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) in the Gauhati High Court, seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus or other appropriate orders regarding the failure to issue Aadhaar cards to eligible citizens. As per the petition, this failure stems from the unjust practice of linking Aadhaar enumeration with the NRC process, which has disproportionately affected marginalised and underprivileged communities, particularly in Assam.

Key concerns raised in the petition:

• CJP emphasizes that the non-enumeration of Aadhaar, mandated under Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act (2016), denies access to essential financial subsidies, government services, and welfare schemes. This exclusion primarily impacts those left out of the NRC draft, even though the Aadhaar Act does not link Aadhaar enrolment with citizenship.
• The petition further highlights violations of the Aadhaar (Enrolment and Update) Regulations (2016), especially Regulation 12, which requires state agencies to ensure Aadhaar enrolment for beneficiaries through proactive measures like setting up enrolment centres. However, in Assam, Aadhaar enrolment has been delayed, with many of those who were initially excluded from the NRC still without Aadhaar identification.

Thereafter, it is crucial to also highlight that the Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) had also intervened in the Sushmita Dev v Union of India case [WP (C) No(s).1361/2021] in the Supreme Court since a similar petition of theirs had also been filed in the Gulati High Court. It was highlighted by the CJP that it sought to intervene in the said Writ Petition due to its significant interest in the matter, particularly concerning the implications of linking Aadhaar enrolment with citizenship rights and the NRC process.

Through the Intervening Application, CJP had raised the following key prayers before the Supreme Court-

1. A writ of certiorari to quash any decision blocking Aadhaar enrolment for individuals excluded from the NRC Draft published on July 30, 2019.
2. A writ of mandamus directing Aadhaar enrolment for all persons excluded due to their non-inclusion in the NRC process.
3. Interim relief ensuring that those excluded from Aadhaar due to the NRC process are not deprived of government schemes, welfare measures, banking activities, or the use of PAN cards during the pendency of the petition.

CJP had, through its application, shown its particularly concern about the Union of India’s proposed modalities that link Aadhaar enrolment to the NRC process, potentially affecting both citizens and non-citizens. The Applicant had believed this linkage could cause grave prejudice to the rights of those excluded from the NRC.

This came after the petition that CJP had filed in the Gauhati High Court.

CJP’s grassroot-level work in Assam

CJP’s work has been a crucial intervention in addressing the struggles of marginalised populations, especially in rural areas, with 62% of the affected being women. Through paralegal and legal aid, CJP’s Assam team has provided support to tens of thousands of people who were left out of the NRC’s provisional final list in 2018, which had caused widespread panic and distress among Assam’s population.

In addition to this ground-level work, CJP had also set up a toll-free helpline to assist those struggling to file claims and corrections during the NRC process. Many of these individuals, even after their inclusion in the final NRC list, still lack Aadhaar cards, making them ineligible for various essential services and financial subsidies.

Details of the petition in the High Court (CJP): The petition highlights that 213 out of 300 individuals surveyed, who were included in the NRC, have still not been issued Aadhaar cards, which shows a staggering non-enrolment rate of 71%. Furthermore, even those who were excluded from the NRC have been shut out of the Aadhaar system entirely. This systemic denial of rights, despite no legal link between citizenship and Aadhaar, constitutes an arbitrary exercise of power by the authorities, further deepening the marginalisation of Assam’s poor and agrarian populations.

CJP also underscored the humanitarian aspect of their work, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition to providing relief materials, the team has helped families of detainees in Assam’s detention centres secure their release after the Supreme Court directed the release of inmates who had completed two years of detention. This work involved navigating complex bail formalities for over 50 individuals.

The petition filed in the High Court also firmly argues that citizenship and Aadhaar should not be linked, especially given that Aadhaar is required for critical services like banking and government benefits. The ongoing denial of Aadhaar to those excluded from the NRC is a violation of their fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution, particularly as the Aadhaar Act itself does not base eligibility on citizenship. If left unaddressed, this exclusion will lead to the continued disenfranchisement of millions, with estimates suggesting that as many as 40 lakh individuals in Assam may still be without Aadhaar.

The petition concludes by urging the Gauhati High Court to issue directions to the authorities to ensure the immediate issuance of Aadhaar cards to all eligible persons, including those excluded from the NRC, so that they may access the full range of benefits and services under government schemes. It calls for the removal of arbitrary barriers and urges the authorities to comply with the mandates of the Aadhaar Act, ensuring that the rights of marginalised populations are upheld in both letter and spirit.

An admission of error: Years too late

According to the Scroll’s report, in July 2023, after three years of relentless pressure, Assam’s home department had finally admitted to misinterpreting the Supreme Court’s directions. The officials acknowledged that there was no legal basis for withholding Aadhaar cards, resulting in over 9 lakh people being denied essential entitlements for half a decade.

This admission of error, however, does little to console those affected. There is also confusion regarding the actual number of people whose biometrics were blocked. While the Assam government initially reported that 27.43 lakh individuals had their biometrics collected during NRC re-verification, officials now state that only 9.35 lakh actually did. This miscalculation further highlights the inefficiency and administrative chaos that has plagued the Aadhaar-NRC debacle.

Living in limbo

The unlocking of biometrics raises another uncomfortable reality for many in Assam—those who were excluded from the final NRC can now get Aadhaar cards, but their citizenship status remains in limbo. Without official rejection orders from the NRC, these individuals cannot appeal their citizenship cases in foreigners’ tribunals. In this odd legal paradox, they are given access to Aadhaar while simultaneously being marked as stateless, adding another layer of uncertainty to their lives.

The road ahead

Despite the unlocking of biometrics, the struggle for justice in Assam is far from over. While the recent announcement brings a measure of relief to many, it also exposes a labyrinth of unresolved issues that have persisted for years. Questions about transparency, accountability, and compensation remain pressing concerns for those affected by the NRC process.

For individuals like Fazrul Hoque from Dhubri and Anowara Khatoon from Goalpara, the unlocking of their biometrics signifies more than just the potential to access government benefits; it represents a long-awaited acknowledgment of their identity and citizenship. Anowara’s frustration is compounded by the fact that her voter status is marked ‘D,’ effectively disenfranchising her despite her new Aadhaar card containing incorrect information.

Others, like Hasina Khaoon and Ariful Islam echo similar sentiments of confusion and frustration. Hasina is still waiting for her Aadhaar card, unsure of the reasons for the delay, while Ariful feels trapped in limbo, watching others receive their cards while he remains stuck in a bureaucratic quagmire. Noreja Begum emphasises the emotional toll and the harrowing experience of losing critical documents, while Rina Ghosh illustrates the dire consequences of being denied access to essential services due to the locked Aadhaar making her struggle even more painful.

The unlocking of biometrics has also highlighted the plight of individuals who, despite the process being completed, are still in a waiting game. Tanmoy Saha, for instance, continues to face challenges as his Aadhaar remains “in process.” His disappointment reflects a broader reality that many have endured: years of hardship without access to vital identity documents.

Moreover, the fear of selective profiling and discrimination looms large. Amidst a backdrop of politically charged rhetoric from leaders like Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, doubts persist about whether the government can truly ensure equitable access to services for all citizens, regardless of their background. This climate of suspicion undermines trust in governance and raises significant concerns about the future of citizenship and identity in Assam.

The broader implications of these issues extend beyond individual hardships. They call into question the very foundations of democracy and the principles of justice and equality that underpin it. As affected individuals continue to fight for their rights and recognition, they advocate not only for themselves but also for a more inclusive and transparent system that respects the dignity of all citizens.

In this context, accountability from the state becomes essential. Advocacy groups, including CJP, emphasise the need for comprehensive policies that address the injustices faced by those affected by the NRC process. They argue that it is crucial for the government to not only unlock biometrics but also provide compensation for the suffering endured by individuals and families during these tumultuous years.

As Assam navigates this complex landscape, the road ahead will require a concerted effort from all stakeholders—government officials, civil society, and the public—to ensure that the rights and dignity of every citizen are upheld. Only through collective action and a commitment to justice can the state begin to heal from the wounds of this prolonged crisis, paving the way for a more equitable future for all.

Related:

Eviction tragedy in Assam: Two killed during eviction drive as police firing sparks allegations of government bias

Assam government’s efforts to intensify crackdown on “Suspected/Declared Foreigners” sparks fears of brute targeting & rights denials

New Assam Muslim Marriages & Divorces Bill: Reform or politics?

Assam: Partial relief, over 9 lakh people to get Aadhaar card, serious questions for excluded 18 lakh

The post Assam citizenship crisis: Aadhaar and the shadows of exclusion and administrative labyrinth appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Married into a Rajbongshi family in the 1990s, Fulkumari originally hailing from the neighbouring state of West Bengal saw her dreams of a peaceful life shatter as she was marked as a ‘D’ voter shortly after enrolling as a voter in her new community.

Fulkumari’s journey from being a young bride to facing the harsh realities of being designated a ‘D’ voter on the official list has been nothing short of a mental and emotional ordeal. The new tag plunged her into a world of uncertainty, and has cast a shadow over her identity and deprived her of her basic rights.

Born and raised in West Bengal, Fulkumari’s arrival in Pokalagi village was marked by happiness and excitement of a new beginning as she embarked on her journey as a married woman. Enrolling as a voter was meant to symbolise her official integration into the community.

However, fate had other plans as a few years later she found herself  labelled as a ‘D’ voter.  This incident seemed to promise to alter the course of her life forever. This year it has been almost a decade of her suffering through the crisis.

Fulkumari’s daily existence is affected by the constant reminder of the status of her citizenship, a label that made suspect not just her voting rights, but also her entire identity and existence. The weight of this situation bore heavily on her health and life, and led to a struggle with mental trauma that has continued through the years.

Despite her desire for justice, Fulkumari’s financial instability stood as an impossible barrier preventing her from challenging her ‘D’ voter status in court. This lack of resources held her back from accessing a system that could help correct this situation and restore her dignity. As the years went by, she also found herself prevented from accessing government welfare schemes, which further worsened her hardships, and thus this vicious circle kept pushing her downwards into despair.

In Fulkumari Barman’s own words, this suffering felt like a curse she had no control over, despite her birth in the very heart of the nation. Her story sheds light on the larger struggle faced by countless individuals who find themselves trapped in bureaucratic mazes, unable to break free in Assam.

Related:

CJP moves NCM against arms training camps, weapon distribution events in Assam and Rajasthan

97-year Old Abandoned by Lawyer, CJP Steps in to Help

CJP Impact: Omesha bibi, another marginalised woman suspected of being a foreigner, declared Indian!

Resolute and Determined: CJP Assam makes headway through 2023

The post A decade of suffering, unyielding pursuit of citizenship by Assam woman appeared first on SabrangIndia.

But for Basu Bewa a lack of communication from the advocate in recent months left her and her family in distress and in despair, and very uncertain about their future.

In addition, Basu Bewa’s encounter with unknown authorities had left her traumatised. She dreaded that they might come to take her away to a detention centre, a fear that ran so deep she could no longer sleep or eat properly. The mere presence of strangers sent her trembling as she recalled the day she received the dreaded notice. It seemed like hope was slipping away from her and her family who were already living with very less means and now faced an uncertain future. Her son Abdul was in tears while narrating his mother’s circumstances.

After CJP’s team members in Assam learned about Basu Bewa’s tragic circumstances and decided to step in to offer support. Habibul Bepari, the District Voluntary Motivator (DVM) from CJP, reached out to the distraught family and assured them that they were not alone in this battle. CJP promised to communicate with the advocate handling Basu Bewa’s case and provide every possible assistance to help her.

CJP’s involvement and strong assurance brought a glimmer of hope to Basu Bewa and her family. They felt a sense of relief knowing that help was near. CJP’s visit instilled confidence in them that justice could be something that is attainable for Basu Bewa too.

With a long history of humanitarian work with people affected by the citizenship crisis, CJP’s work and dedication speaks volumes about their dedication to upholding justice and compassion. Beyond the legal battles fought in courtrooms, the team retains the heart and compassion to understand the human suffering that comes with such cases. They understand that the citizenship crisis affects a person in many ways and is not just limited to one single bureaucratic hurdle faced in court. Thereby, the team is notably equipped to assist victims with several issues, and also is constantly in touch with who are or have been in the past affected by the crisis. In the scorching heat, where uncertainty loomed over the lives of many, Basu Bewa’s story stands out as a testament to the resilience of the human spirit retrieving hope as it was almost extinguished.

Related:

Assam CM sparks outrage for remarks on ‘Miya’ Community, criticised for divisive language

CJP’s arduous task of rehabilitating citizens continues unabated

CJP Impact: Omesha bibi, another marginalised woman suspected of being a foreigner, declared Indian!

Resolute and Determined: CJP Assam makes headway through 2023

The post 97-year old left in legal limbo as lawyer abandons case, CJP comes to the rescue appeared first on SabrangIndia.