Ali’s cancer was detected only on August 11, weeks after his condition had worsened inside the camp. He was initially shifted to the Goalpara Civil Hospital and later to Gauhati Medical College and Hospital (GMCH). Doctors informed authorities that his cancer was terminal and that he could only be given palliative care. Despite this, the state refused to release him. On September 1, his cousin Abdul Jalil petitioned the Goalpara Deputy Commissioner for his release, citing both medical necessity and the detention centre superintendent’s own advice to take him home for treatment. The plea was ignored, according to Scroll’s report.

Ali died at the State Cancer Institute, Guwahati on Sunday, leaving behind his elderly mother, wife, three sons and four daughters.

Declared Foreigner on dubious grounds

Like thousands of others, Ali’s ordeal began decades ago. Branded a “D-voter” (doubtful voter) in 1997 by the Election Commission, he faced a Foreigners Tribunal inquiry years later. In 2017, a notice was issued; in April 2021, the tribunal declared him a “foreigner.”

Family members allege he was never informed of the ruling until police arrived to detain him in May 2025. His lawyer, they say, failed to communicate the verdict. Ali had submitted the 1951 NRC showing his parents’ names and electoral rolls from 1966 and 1970 with his maternal grandparents’ names, but the tribunal dismissed these citing “inconsistencies” in linkage, as reported by Scroll. Even his mother’s sworn testimony was rejected, the tribunal claiming she was “tutored.”

This pattern mirrors other cases we have documented, where minor spelling variations, illiteracy-related memory lapses, or missing decades-old records are weaponised to strip citizenship.

Matia Detention Centre: A site of neglect and death

Ali’s death is the second in Matia this year. In April 2025, 42-year-old Md Abdul Motlib of Hojai district died at GMCH after falling ill in detention. Between 2015 and 2022, official records confirm 31 deaths of detainees branded “illegal foreigners”, according to Scroll.

The Matia detention centre, operational since January 2023, is India’s largest and has repeatedly been condemned for substandard conditions. The Supreme Court, responding to petitions, has over the past year issued a string of orders:

• In July 2024, it described conditions as a “sorry state of affairs” — citing lack of proper toilets, sanitation, medical facilities, and clean water.
• In October 2024, it directed the Assam State Legal Services Authority (SLSA) to conduct surprise inspections of Matia to verify conditions.
• In November 2024, after reviewing SLSA’s report, it noted that even basic amenities were lacking and directed the state to improve facilities within one month.

Detailed CJP reports may be read here and here.

Beyond individual cases

Ali’s death crystallises several themes:

• Judicial rebukes unheeded: Despite Supreme Court interventions, Matia continues with inhuman conditions.
• Medical neglect and denial of release: Even terminally ill detainees are held until death.
• Structural injustice in citizenship adjudication: Tribunals disbelieve even primary records, severing families from citizenship over trivialities.
• Silencing by fear: Families too poor to litigate learn of tribunal orders only when police arrive.

Amzad Ali’s life ended not simply because of cancer, but because of a system designed to exclude and punish. His death adds to a grim tally and underscores why India’s detention regime in Assam remains one of the sharpest sites of rights violations against its own citizens.

Related:

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

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

Supreme Court condemns appalling conditions at Matia Detention Centre in Assam, labels situation a ‘sorry state of affairs’

Victory in Dhubri FT: Jarina Bibi declared Indian after years of ordeal

The post Death in Assam’s Detention Regime: 56-year-old Bengali Muslim succumbs to cancer amid denial of release appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Sukumar Baishya, outside his home, holding up the Foreigners’ Tribunal Order

A journey marked by displacement and persecution

Born in 1963 in Patkata No. 1, Sukumar is the son of Lt. Sahadeb Baishya, who migrated from Binnati, East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) to Assam in 1952–53 due to religious persecution. His father obtained a Certificate of Registration as a Citizen of India on December 24, 1956.

Sukumar’s life story is deeply intertwined with Assam’s turbulent political history. Sukumar’s life was further scarred during the 1983 Assam Movement, when his house was burnt down and all his possessions destroyed. Despite his indisputable roots in India, he found himself accused of being a foreigner who had entered Assam after March 25, 1971.

The case and the State’s allegations

The case against Sukumar arose from a reference under Rule 2(1) of the Foreigners’ Tribunal Order, 1964. He was alleged to be a “foreigner from a specified territory” who entered Assam post-1971.

Sukumar contested this vigorously, asserting that:

• He is Indian by birth, with a father who was a registered Indian citizen since 1956.
• The Investigating Officer (IO) never visited his home, never examined him or his witnesses, and filed a false, baseless, and unverified inquiry report.
• The case was registered in 2004 but he received notice only in February 2021 — a delay of 17 years, which he argued should render the case barred by limitation.

 
CJP Team Assam with Sukumar Baishya outside his home

Documentary evidence submitted

With CJP’s legal support, Sukumar placed on record ten key documents establishing both his own Indian citizenship and his linkage to his father, including:

1. Certificate of Registration (24/12/1956) for his father, issued under Section 5(1)(a)(d) of the Citizenship Act, 1955.
2. Voter List of 1966 – Father’s name recorded under 41 No. Bijni L.A.C.
3. Voter List of 1971 – Father’s name recorded again before the 1971 cut-off.
4. Original Sale Deed (02/07/1956) in his father’s name.
5. Jamabandi Records showing land mutation in 1988 in the names of Sukumar and his brothers after their father’s death.
6. Voter List of 1997 – Sukumar and his wife Renu Bala Baishya recorded at the same address.
7. Voter List of 2005 – Sukumar and both wives (Renu Bala and Anjali Bala) recorded.
8. Ration Card with Sukumar’s and his father’s names.
9. Link Certificate from the President of Palengbari Gaon Panchayat.
10. Additional Jamabandi Records linking the family to the land since the 1950s.

Tribunal’s legal reasoning and findings

The Tribunal framed two key issues:

1. Whether Sahadeb Baishya was a citizen of India.
2. Whether Sukumar Baishya was his son.

On paternity (Issue 2):

• Jamabandi records, the 1997 voter list, and testimony from Sukumar’s younger brother Manindra Baishya and the Land Records Assistant (Manikpur Revenue Circle) proved beyond doubt that Sukumar was the son of Sahadeb Baishya.
• The Ration Card was not accepted as it was not formally proved, but other documentary and oral evidence were sufficient.

On father’s citizenship (Issue 1):

• The Certificate of Registration (1956) and pre-1971 voter lists established Sahadeb as a registered Indian citizen residing in Assam since at least 1956.
• The 1956 sale deed and continuous land records corroborated long-standing residence and ownership.

Final determination: The Tribunal held that Sukumar had successfully discharged the statutory burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, proving he was not a foreigner but an Indian citizen by birth. He was absolved of all allegations.

Human impact and community reaction

When the CJP legal team — Dewan Abdur Rahim (Legal Team Member), Nanda Ghosh (State In-Charge), Sudrasan Das (Community Volunteer), Tapash Chakraborty, and Asikul Hussain (Driver) — visited Sukumar to hand over the judgment copy, he broke down in emotion, thanking CJP for restoring his dignity and security.

Neighbour Dulal Baishya, 80, who has witnessed the horrors of the Assam Movement and decades of communal tensions, expressed gratitude for CJP’s intervention. He also voiced his fears: “I’ve witnessed the Assam movement and its horrors, and I’ve seen communal clashes in Assam over the years. Despite all this, I’ve never considered leaving. Recently, one of my relatives moved to North Bengal. But with the government’s citizenship, eviction, and land rules, I’m worried about my own future. As a common person, I’m scared about how I’ll be able to live in this state.”

A wider pattern of injustice

Sukumar’s case is not isolated. Even 78 years after independence, Bengali-speaking Hindus and Muslims in Assam, especially those from poor and marginalised backgrounds, are still being compelled to prove their citizenship, often decades after their families settled in India.

This case underscores the urgent need for:

• Transparent and fair citizenship determination processes.
• Protection from arbitrary investigations and false reports.
• Recognition that bureaucratic processes should not become tools of exclusion against vulnerable communities.

The complete order may be read here.

Related:

Liberty under Siege: Reclaiming the right to speedy trial from the grip of special laws

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 After years of delay, justice at last for Sukumar Baishya as Foreigners’ Tribunal declares him an Indian citizen 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.

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.

Declared a ‘foreigner’ by Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 10 in Nagaon on October 31, 2016 (Case FT(D) No. 24/2015), Matleb had managed to secure bail from the Gauhati High Court in February 2017. But in September 2024, the same court upheld the Tribunal’s declaration. He was detained and sent to the Matia Transit Camp — Assam’s largest and newest detention facility — on December 5, 2024.

For five months, Matleb remained incarcerated in this high-security detention camp, far from his home in Hojai. He was seriously ill for much of that time of detention— taken to hospitals several times, even admitted for 17 days before Eid. Yet, according to his family, he had no serious health issues before his detention. Whatever illness consumed him began only after he was imprisoned. Even as he deteriorated, his family was never provided with a single medical record — neither during his detention, nor after his death.

On the evening of April 17, 2025, the family received a call from Matia officials. Matleb’s condition had worsened, they were told, and they should come see him. Given the long journey — over 300 kilometres from Hojai to Goalpara — the family asked if they could leave the next morning. The officials agreed. But just a few hours later, around 1 a.m., another call came. Matleb had been shifted to the Guwahati Medical College and Hospital (GMCH).

His wife, Husanara Begum, and her brother, Sarmul Islam, immediately left for Guwahati at 3 a.m. They reached the hospital by morning. But instead of finding Matleb under treatment, they were met with silence and evasion. It wasn’t until 3 pm — after hours of waiting and pleading — that Sarmul was allowed into the morgue. That is where he finally saw his brother-in-law, lifeless.

Abdul Matleb was the sole breadwinner for his family — a wife and four daughters, three of them still in school. He worked as a rock breaker, a job his wife also took up to support the household. But now, caught in mourning rituals and with no son to assist her, she cannot return to work. The family is left with no income, no explanation, and no justice.

Even during his medical visits, Matleb was treated as a criminal. He was often taken to hospitals in handcuffs. “Where would he run in that condition?” his brother-in-law had asked the police once. Only then were the cuffs removed.

In the most heart-wrenching moment of this story, the authorities who had insisted Matleb was a Bangladeshi handed over his body to be buried in the land where he was born, lived, and worked all his life. Initially, the family refused to accept the body. “If he was Bangladeshi, send his body there,” they told the officials. But eventually, they relented. His daughters, they felt, should have the chance to see their father one last time.

He was buried in a small graveyard just a few steps from his home in Hojai — the same place his ancestors were buried. A man declared a foreigner by the State was returned in death to the soil of his birth.

This tragedy did not happen in isolation. Similar deaths have occurred in Assam’s detention centres — and in each case, the bodies were quietly returned to their families in India. These stories lay bare the moral and administrative collapse of the state’s ‘foreigner detection’ mechanism.

When a team from Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) visited the family, there were no words that could make sense of the grief. Matleb’s youngest daughter, Abida, who studies in Class IV, could not speak. Her eyes were dry, her face blank. Her smile, her family said, has not returned.

Sarmul Islam, her maternal uncle, recounted the events while speaking to CJP Assam team, and said:

      “We got a call at 9 pm on April 17 saying his health was failing. We told them we’d come early next morning. They said okay.      Then around 1 am, they said he had been shifted to Guwahati. We left at 3 am. But when we reached, they kept us waiting for hours. Finally, after 3 pm, they showed us the body.”

      “We didn’t want to accept the body. If he was a foreigner, send him to Bangladesh, we said. But we thought of the girls. They should at least get to see him one last time.”

      “He never had a serious illness. All of this happened after he was taken to detention. He was taken to hospital four or five times. Only once was he in Guwahati for 13–14 days. They would call us, but never give us any reports. And every time, he was in handcuffs. Only once, after we requested, they removed them.”

“He had all his documents. This happened only because of two names — Abdul Matleb and Matleb Ali. That’s it. No one else in the family has a case. His parents, his relatives — all here. If he’s Bangladeshi, then they are too. But it was just him.”

Assam’s detention regime operates on a cruel paradox. People are declared foreigners on the flimsiest of grounds — spelling errors, document mismatches, legacy data discrepancies. They are then locked away in high-security camps, often far from their families, with little transparency, few legal safeguards, and no meaningful remedy.

Worse still, the system makes no sense even on its own terms. If Matleb was not Indian, why was his body given to his family in Hojai? Why was he buried in the local graveyard? The State has no answer. On behalf of CJP, a team of five set out early in the morning and travelled over eight hours to reach Abdul Matleb’s grieving family. But once there, we were left speechless. The pain in that home was beyond words, the moment beyond description. What can be said when a system, in the name of identifying ‘foreigners’, inflicts such relentless cruelty on its own people? Assam’s Foreigners Tribunals and detention camps have become a dark stain on our democracy—where those who belong are treated like criminals, and where justice is lost to bureaucracy and bias.

This issue has been raised repeatedly — by human rights organisations, especially CJP, in the national media, even in the Assam Legislative Assembly. Yet, the cycle of injustice grinds on.

Abdul Matleb was handcuffed in life and returned as an Indian only in death. In seeking to identify ‘foreigners’, the Indian State is erasing the dignity of its own citizens — and in cases like this, even their lives.’

Related:

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

Ajabha Khatun, among the 63 facing detention in Assam, seeks Supreme Court intervention, emphasis on pending legal remedies

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

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

The post Foreigner in Life, Indian in Death: The cruel end of Abdul Matleb in assam’s detention camp appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Amidst this challenging environment, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) stands as a vital ally, tirelessly assisting families in navigating the complex and often intimidating bureaucratic landscape. CJP’s dedicated advocates provide essential support, helping families overcome barriers and ensure that their voices are heard in a system that often overlooks their plight.

Additionally, a separate crucial development also came with the Supreme Court mandating surprise inspections of the Matia detention camp. This intervention comes in response to mounting concerns over the living conditions of detainees, including issues related to hygiene and potential human rights abuses. The Court’s decision to order these unannounced inspections signifies a recognition of the urgent need for accountability and transparency within the detention system, highlighting the ongoing struggle for dignity and justice faced by those confined within these walls.

Supreme Court orders inspections of Assam’s Matia transit camp amid human rights concerns

On October 4, the Supreme Court directed the Assam State Legal Services Authority (SLSA) to conduct unannounced inspections of the Matia Transit Camp in Goalpara, Assam, which houses foreign nationals. The inspections are aimed at assessing the camp’s hygiene, food quality, and overall living conditions. A bench comprising of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih ordered the SLSA Secretary to assign suitable officers to carry out these inspections periodically, without prior notice to camp authorities, to ensure that the state’s claims of improved conditions—made in a compliance affidavit—are accurate.

The Court stated, “We direct the Secretary of the Assam State Legal Services Authority to arrange for inspections of the Transit Camp facilities to verify whether the claims made by the State Government in the affidavit of Shri Ranadip Dam, Joint Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Assam, are accurate. The Secretary shall nominate officers to conduct periodic visits without prior notice to the authorities to check the cleanliness, hygiene, quality of food, and overall conditions in the camp.”

The Supreme Court has asked the Assam SLSA to submit a detailed report on the findings within a month, and the next hearing is scheduled for November 4, 2024.

This development follows the Court’s earlier concerns raised in July about the “sorry state of affairs” at the Matia Transit Camp. On July 26, 2024, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih had criticised the poor conditions after reviewing a report from the Assam Legal Services Authority, highlighting issues such as inadequate water supply, poor sanitation, and insufficient toilet facilities. The Court had expressed deep concern over the inhumane and deplorable conditions in which declared foreigners were being detained.

Beyond just poor infrastructure, the Matia Transit Camp, and similar detention centres across Assam, reflect broader issues of human rights violations. These camps often house individuals declared as “foreigners” following disputes over citizenship, many of whom are from marginalised communities or are stateless. The conditions in these camps are notoriously inhumane, with detainees deprived of basic necessities, forced to live in overcrowded spaces, and subjected to substandard living conditions. The lack of adequate medical care, sanitation, and dignity raises serious ethical concerns, bringing into question the government’s approach toward handling individuals who, in many cases, may have lived in India for decades but failed to provide the necessary documentation to prove their citizenship.

In the broader context, these camps are part of a contentious legal and political framework surrounding migration, nationality, and human rights in Assam. Last month, the Supreme Court also addressed the issue of deporting the 211 foreign nationals currently detained at Matia, 66 of whom are from Bangladesh. While Assam has responded to the Court’s queries on this matter through an affidavit, the union government has yet to file a response. The Court has now given the union government until October 25, 2024 to submit its affidavit detailing how it plans to handle the deportation process.

Detention centres like Matia stand as a stark symbol of how policies that claim to be about immigration control can devolve into practices that violate basic human dignity. For the detainees—many of whom are effectively stateless—the conditions in these centres serve as an ongoing humanitarian crisis that demands urgent attention.

The order of the Supreme Court may be read here.

Tightening of chains – new restrictions at Assam’s detention camps deepen the pain for families

Until 2021, Assam had six detention camps located in different regions, including Dibrugarh, Jorhat, Tezpur, Silchar, Goalpara, and Kokrajhar. These camps housed Declared Foreign Nationals (DFNs), people deemed as foreigners under Assam’s stringent citizenship laws. Many of those detained were marginalised individuals, unable to afford legal help or navigate the complex process required for release.

However, through the relentless efforts of Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) and in accordance with a landmark Supreme Court ruling, many DFNs were granted bail and released from these camps. CJP played a pivotal role in helping those who were economically disadvantaged and unable to secure bail on their own. By the end of the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, CJP’s intervention had drastically reduced the number of inmates in these six detention camps, giving hope to families who had long been separated from their loved ones.

In the aftermath of this effort, the world’s largest permanent detention centre was constructed at Matia, Goalpara. Despite the scale and the ongoing controversies surrounding this facility, CJP maintained its commitment to the detainees and their families. CJP members visited the newly built Matia Detention Camp three to four times a year, ensuring continued support for the inmates. They also frequently accompanied family members, helping them navigate the bureaucratic hurdles and emotional strain of visiting their loved ones. For these families, seeing their relatives was often fraught with fear and uncertainty—communication gaps, strict rules, and the intimidating behaviour of camp authorities made every visit a daunting task. But with CJP’s assistance, the process was much smoother, allowing families precious moments of connection.

However, after the detention of 28 DFNs from Barpeta district, everything changed. On September 2, 2024, in Assam’s Barpeta, 28 individuals—19 men and 9 women—were torn from their homes, ripped from the embrace of their families, and labelled “declared foreigners”. Authorities at the Matia camp became stricter, limiting access and creating even more barriers for families. Only immediate family members were allowed to visit, and even then, they could only see their loved ones from a distance. Mobile phones had to be left outside, thorough security checks were conducted before anyone could enter, and visiting hours were severely restricted. The sense of isolation grew, both for the detainees and their families.

CJP’s advocate, Ashim Mubarak, recently tried to visit the inmates after the 28 DFNs were detained, but he was denied entry. He couldn’t meet with those inside, a stark contrast to the earlier days when access was relatively easier. CJP, undeterred, continued its mission, successfully assisting one family member in visiting their relative who had recently been detained.

Advocate Ashim Mubarak expressed his dismay, saying, “A sudden change has taken place in the camp. Earlier, it was much easier for people to meet their relatives, but now, for ordinary families, it’s become incredibly difficult to see their loved ones inside.”

Nanda Ghosh, the Assam state in-charge for CJP, added, “Common people don’t always know the rules they have to follow when visiting their loved ones in the camp, and it makes things harder for them. When the government’s intentions are not just, the poor always suffer. We are here to support them and help them through this dark and difficult time.”

For families of the detainees, the pain of separation, compounded by these sudden and rigid restrictions, continues to grow. Yet, with CJP’s dedication, there remains a glimmer of hope in an otherwise harrowing situation.

In 2019, CJP released a documentary on Assam’s detention camps, portraying them as grim, oppressive places akin to a modern-day purgatory, where those declared as foreigners by Foreigners’ Tribunals (FT) are forced to remain until they can either secure bail or overturn the tribunal’s decision in a higher court. The documentary offered a stark look into the harsh conditions within these camps, highlighting issues such as severe overcrowding, poor sanitation, and inadequate food and nutrition.

The video also featured harrowing testimonies from former detainees, who recounted their traumatic experiences in these centres. Moreover, the documentary shed light on the troubling phenomenon of “sudden deaths” occurring within the camps, where families are left without any clear explanation or reason behind the loss of their loved ones.

Behind Shadows: Tales of Injustice from Assam’s Detention camps

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?

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

The post Assam detention camps tighten rules, leaving families struggling to visit loved ones detained in Matia transit camp appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In the north-eastern state of Assam, India, the quest for citizenship has been a long-standing issue, entangling countless lives in a web of uncertainty. The gravity of the situation can be felt when stories of those being unjustly targeted and scrutinised by the state, based on their religious identity in most cases, comes forth. It takes the Tribunals and Courts many years to hear and decide the cases of those under the scanner, especially since the officer’s in-charge of the investigation do not discharge their duty fairly in verifying the documents presented by the accused to establish their citizenships. Meanwhile, those who have their nationality and identity hanging by a thread keep on suffering. Among those who had to suffer through a series of injustice and targeting was Rahim Ali, a man whose story is a poignant testament to the human cost of this citizenship struggle.

It was after the delivery of the Supreme Court judgement that the lawyer representing the accused, Advocate Kaushik Chaudhary, got to know about the demise of Rahim Ali. As per the report of The Indian Express, Chaudhary had stated that he was fighting Rahim Ali’s case pro bono and became aware of the death of Rahim Ali as the family was contacted in regards to the judgment.

The Assam team of Citizen’s for Justice and Peace met with the family of Rahim Ali in their village to talk to them about the judgment, the establishment of the Indian nationality of deceased Rahim Ali and to provide her with emotional support for the ordeal that the family had to go through. Dealing with families who remain fearful of having their loved ones snatched away due to indifference of the state is a situation that the CJP Assam team, who helps the residents of Assam put under the scrutiny of the state to fight the legal battle of proving their citizenship, has had to face often.

Team CJP with Rahim Ali’s family

Brief facts of the case:

The case against the present appellant, Md. Rahim Ali, had begun in the year 2004. The charges against Ali were regarding his alleged “illegal migration from Bangladesh post March 25, 1971.” The said date of March 25 of the year 1971 is significant as it is the cut-off date as per section 6A (Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord) of the Citizenship Act.

The investigating officer, Sub-Inspector Bipin Dutta, sending the “notice” under the dreaded Foreigners Act, 1946, reported that the appellant failed to provide documentary evidence of entry into India before January 1, 1966. As a matter of course, as the experience of Citizens for Justice and Peace (www.cjp.org.in) in Assam reveals, the very basis of such notices are without basis or material facts.

In this case too, as provided by the order of the Supreme Court, the appellant stated that his parents’ names appeared in the voter lists of 1965 and 1970 for Village Dolur Pather, under Bhabanipur Legislative Assembly Constituency in Assam. Ali had also stated that he was born in the same village, and his name, along with his family members, appeared in the 1985 voter list. After marrying in 1997, he moved to Village Kashimpur, Nalbari district, where his name appeared in the 1997 voter list.

On the receipt of notice by the Tribunal, the appellant appeared on July 18, 2011, and has sought time to file the written statement as he was suffering some serious health ailments. It is to be noted that despite obtaining a medical certificate indicating his illness, the tribunal had passed an ex-parte order on March 19, 2012. Passing such ex-parte orders is also often routine in Assam. As per the order of the Tribunal, appellant Md. Rahim Ali had been declared a foreigner under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 by the Foreigners Tribunal, Nalbari on March 19, 2012. The said declaration had been made by the Tribunal on the ground that Ali had failed to prove his Indian nationality.

After the order of the Tribunal was delivered, Ali moved the High Court on May 30, 2012, to challenge the order of the High Court. On June 6, 2012, the High Court stayed the tribunal’s order by passing an interim order, directing the authority not to deport the appellant during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court. However, on November 23, 2015, the High Court dismissed the writ petition moved by Ali, affirming the tribunal’s order declaring Ali a foreigner and clearing the path for his deportation. Challenging the said order of dismissal of the High Court, Ali moved the Supreme Court.

On July 11, 2024, in a significant judgment, the bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed that authorities cannot randomly accuse people of being foreigners and initiate investigation into a person’s nationality without there being some material basis or information to sustain the suspicion. Holding the same, the bench overturned the judgment of the Gauhati High Court, through which the present appellant had been declared foreigner on the grounds that he failed to discharge his burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and failed to prove that he is not a foreigner.

The details of the case can be referred to here.

CJP’s team meeting family of Rahim Ali:

On behalf of CJP Assam team, State In-charge Nanda Ghosh and legal member Advocate Abhijeet Choudhury went to meet with Rahim Ali’s family in Kashempur village of Nalbari. The team experienced a range of emotions when they first met Rahim Ali’s wife, Hajera Bibi. Hajera was relieved that her husband had at last been recognized as an Indian, but her happiness was overshadowed by the realisation that Rahim Ali was not around to see this day. She described how Rahim Ali’s health had suffered greatly as a result of the strain of the citizenship dispute, which ultimately resulted in his premature death.

Hajera described how Rahim Ali had grown more and more withdrawn, spending months at a time hiding from the authorities, and how his diabetes had gotten worse due to his fear of being arrested. The family sold everything they owned, including goats, cows, and even property, but they were unable to pay for Rahim Ali’s necessary medical care.

Hajera holds up the judgement declaring Rahim Ali an Indian

Hajera is now left to look after their son, who is 14 years old. Hajera took comfort in the knowledge that her husband’s suffering might not have been in vain, though, after learning that the Supreme Court’s decision had given hope to many others going through comparable difficulties. With a satisfied sigh, she said, “this judgment is crucial so that the injustice that happened to me does not happen to anyone else.”

As Team CJP consoled Hajera, they promised to support her and their villages going forward with any citizenship-related concerns. It is essential to note that through the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the Rahim Ali case, the bench had held that even for initiating an inquiry, there has to be some material basis or information to suspect that the person is a foreigner and not an Indian. Secondly, a mere allegation that someone is an illegal migrant is not enough to impose the burden of proving the citizenship on the accused under Section 9 of The Foreigners Act, 1946. As per the judgment, the fact that Section 9 burden only kicks in after the foundational facts have been established by the referring authority before the tribunal was once more established.

It further recognised the diversity in language which often renders the spelling of names in documents inconsistent. In Rahim Ali’s case, the court held that the State miserably failed to provide the material basis for initiating the case against him, rendering the inception of the case itself a nullity, void and without merits.

Thirdly, the bench had held that not giving a copy of the main grounds based on which the case has been referred or it is alleged that the person is a foreigner by the authority to the person proceeded against is violative of principles of natural justice.

Related:

SC highlights deplorable conditions in Matia detention Centre of Assam, calls it a “sorry state of affairs”

Assam CM makes misleading statement regarding Muslim population in Assam, attracts criticism from opposition leaders

SC directs Centre to deport 17 foreigners detained in Assam Detention Centre

SC issues notice to Union and NRC Coordinator over woman declared foreigner by tribunal and halts deportation

Triumphant Win for CJP: Jamila Khatoon, Assamese Bengali Muslim, officially recognised as Indian Citizen

The post 12-year legal battle for identity: Rahim Ali’s posthumous victory in Assam’s citizenship tribunal appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As per a report of LiveLaw, the bench had pointed the lamentable conditions of the detention centres by asking the counsel for the state to “Please see the report by Assam State Legal Service Authority. Such a sorry state of affairs. There are no proper toilets, no medical facilities. What kind of facilities you are managing?”

It is essential to note that these observations were made by the Bench after perusing a report from the Secretary of Assam Legal Services Authority regarding the detention centre in Matia, Assam. The said report had been submitted to the Court on after Justices Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan had directed to the Committee appointed by the Assam State Legal Services Authority to visit the detention centre with a view to find out the nature of the facilities made available to the declared foreigners in the said Detention Centres. The abovementioned order had been issued by the Supreme Court on May 16, 2024.

Based on the same, the Bench observed in its order the lack of sanitation hygiene and systems, while highlighting that the report does not provide any information regarding the facility of food and medical health in the detention centre.

The order stated that “We find that the facilities are very poor in the sense there is no adequate water supply, there are no proper sanitation systems, there are no proper toilets. The report does not speak about the facility of food and medical health.”

As per the live reporting by LiveLaw, Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, representing the petitioners, had submitted during the hearing that Matia detention centre in Assam is a very big deportation centre, housing around 3000 people within it. Gonsalves provided “I saw the report and everywhere the report says it is informed, it is informed, it is informed. They must go to the area and meet the people like NHRC did.”

Taking note of the following argument raised, the bench directed the secretary of Assam State Legal Service Authority to ensure one more visit to find out not only the facilities mentioned in the report but also ascertain the quality and quantity of food served and the cleanliness of the kitchen. The said report was then required by the bench to be submitted within 3 weeks.

“The Secretary to submit a fresh report within 3 weeks. Union of India to file a response on the issue of deportation within three weeks,” the Court had ordered.

Another issue of deportation to those who had no pending cases against them, based on the previous order of the Supreme Court, was also raised. Notably, on May 16, 2024, the division bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan had directed the central government to take steps to immediately deport 17 declared foreigners detained in transit camps of Assam, considering that there are no pending cases registered against them. The court had also directed that priority should be given to deport 4 persons who have spent more than 2 years in the Detention Centre.

The apex court had then stated that “We are of the view that the Union of India must take immediate steps for deporting these 17 declared foreigners as it is not the case that there are any offences registered in India against them. Priority should be given to deport 04 persons who have spent more than 02 years in the Detention Centre. The Advocate-on-Record for the Union of India shall forward a copy of this order to all the concerned Authorities of the Union of India to take immediate steps for deporting these 17 declared foreigners. A compliance affidavit shall be filed by an appropriate officer of the Union of India within a period of two months from today.”

The details of the previous order can be read here.

Against this backdrop, the Court, on July 26, asked the counsel for the Union to inform the bench about the steps for deportation. At this, Gonsalves submitted that some of the individuals proposed to be deported have their cases pending before the High Court. “They must check if they are deporting people whose cases are pending somewhere down the line,” he added, as per LiveLaw. Gonsalves further underscored the issue of legal aid by stating that if any person from the Foreigners’ tribunal wanted to approach the High Court, no legal aid was being provided.

The order of the Supreme Court is yet to be uploaded on its website.

Related:

SC directs Centre to deport 17 foreigners detained in Assam Detention Centre

SC issues notice to Union and NRC Coordinator over woman declared foreigner by tribunal and halts deportation

Triumphant Win for CJP: Jamila Khatoon, Assamese Bengali Muslim, officially recognised as Indian Citizen

The post SC highlights deplorable conditions in Matia detention Centre of Assam, calls it a “sorry state of affairs” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The division bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice while hearing Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 234 of 2020 related to the condition of detention centres in Assam where individuals with a doubt citizenship and deemed foreigner were kept in detention, directed the central government for immediate deportation of 17 declared foreigner. The court further directs that priority should be given to deport 4 persons who have spent more than 2 years in the Detention Centre.

Brief Background of the case:

On December 12, 2011, an ex-parte order was passed by the Foreigners Tribunals, declared the petitioner’s husband, the petitioner and their children to be foreigners. The petitioner’s husband had initially appeared in the Foreigners Tribunal but thereafter remained unrepresented due to financial inability.

The Petitioner’s husband approached the Gauhati High Court for setting aside and quashing of the Foreigners Tribunal order dated 01.12.2011, but his petition was dismissed. The petitioner thereafter approached the Supreme Court also but again his petition was dismissed by the court.

The petitioner submitted that the task of detaining persons declared to be foreigners was undertaken following the issuance of Notification No. PLB. 149/2008/88 dated 17.06.2009 by the Political (B) Department of the Government of Assam.  By this notification, it was ordered that the movement of persons detected as Foreigners by the Foreigners Tribunal shall be restricted and they shall be required to reside in the detention centres immediately after their detention and till they are deported to their place of origin.

The Petitioner further submitted that the petitioner’s husband’s parents along with him had migrated to India in 1964 and are thereby citizens of India and are thereby citizens of India by virtue of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955.

According to the petitioner, at present there are 802 persons living in the detention centre of Assam according to information provided on 11.02.2020 in the Rajya Sabha by the Minister of State in the Ministry of Home Affairs.

The Petitioner relied of the order of Supreme Court on dated 11.05.2019 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1045 of 2018 in which SC held that detenus who have completed more than three years may be released subject to the condition prescribed.

The writ petition can be read here:

Supreme Court order dated May 16, 2024:

On May 16, 2024, the division bench of Supreme Court said “The Assam Legal Services Authority has not reported about the facilities which are made available to the declared foreigners in the Detention Centre. The report shows that there is a detention centre also known as transit camp at Matia, Goalpara district of Assam. There are 17 declared foreigners detained in the said Detention Centre/Transit Camp out of which 04 have already spent more than 02 years.

The apex court further added that “We are of the view that the Union of India must take immediate steps for deporting these 17 declared foreigners as it is not the case that there are any offences registered in India against them. Priority should be given to deport 04 persons who have spent more than 02 years in the Detention Centre. The Advocate-on-Record for the Union of India shall forward a copy of this order to all the concerned Authorities of the Union of India to take immediate steps for deporting these 17 declared foreigners. A compliance affidavit shall be filed by an appropriate officer of the Union of India within a period of two months from today.”

The court also directed to the Committee appointed by the Assam State Legal Services Authority shall again visit the detention centre with a view to find out the nature of the facilities made available to the declared foreigners in the said Detention Centres.

And, the report of ASLSA shall be filed before the next date, the court said.

Now the matter is listed for July 26, 2024 to consider the compliance affidavit of the Union of India.

The order of Supreme Court dated 16.05.2024 can b read here:

Related:

SC issues notice to Union and NRC Coordinator over woman declared foreigner by tribunal and halts deportation

Assam: ‘No Aadhaar, No Citizenship, So No Vote to BJP’, said a Citizens Convention

Assam gov’t adamant on NRC reverification

The post SC directs Centre to deport 17 foreigners detained in Assam Detention Centre appeared first on SabrangIndia.

These 14 people were escorted to the Matia Detention Camp, which has recently been renamed as a “Transit Camp.” The sudden action was the outcome of all of them declared “foreigners” by the infamous Foreigners Tribunal^[1] despite having requisite documents like other valid citizen of India; the FT judgements declaring several of them as foreigners have been criticised by the Gauhati High Court as well. Their detention has sparked widespread concern and fear in the region. Several of the detained include old and young alike – mothers, fathers, grandparents alike, many of them ranging from various parts of the Baksa district, such as Salbari, Gobhardan, Barama etc.

What actually happened on October 31, 2023?

On that fatal day, October 31, families were summoned by the authorities for what they had believed to be routine documentation check at the local border branch at 8 am in the morning.

However, they found themselves facing a harrowing situation. By 2 pm, the people were summarily made to undergo a medical examinations on their way to Mushalpur Police Station; none of them had any clue what was happening. By that night at Mushalpur Police Station, there was a reportedly calculated attempt to separate family members from those who were about to be detained. This led to further chaos as family members were sent out of the police station, while their relatives remained inside with their fate unknown. There were cries and screams heard from the police station; it was evident now to all present that the remaining people were to be taken to detention camps. Those detained were not given any chance or intimation to prepare their belongings or inform family members at home.

As the night progressed, there was a handful of media persons who had managed to gather some information on the incident which is how news of the incident first got disclosed.  Soon after, a detailed narration of the incident was disclosed to CJP’s team Assam by Ashraf Ali, who was with his father Jahur Ali and mother Sarifa Begum, until the police forcibly separated him from his parents.

Meet some of the detained

Citizens for Justice and Peace has collected the names of the 14 who are detained. A team from CJP has been regularly meeting some of the families affected by these detentions.

1. Pariman Nessa from Bhakuamari, Salbari.
2. Houshi Khatun from Bhakuamari, Salbari.
3. Siddique Ali from Bherberi, Barama
4. Faziran Begum from Bherbheri, Barama
5. Anowara Khatun from Bhakuamari, Salbari
6. Rahiman Nessa from Bhakuamari, Salbari.
7. Jahur Ali from Garhbhitar, Barama
8. Sarifa Begum  from Garhbhitar, Barama.
9. Maij Uddin from Raghabbil, Gobardhana.
10. Amzad Ali from Bhakuamari, Salbari.
11. Mukbul Hussain from Kuthurijhar, Gobardhana.
12. Mafida Khatun from Kuthurijhar, Gobardhana.
13. Hamida Khatun from Kuthurijhar, Gobardhana.
14. Jahanara Khatun from Alengamari, Gobardhana.

1 of 11

CJP reaches out

The citizenship crisis in Assam transforms into a tool by state authorities that unleash anguish on people of poor, marginalised backgrounds. Based on accepted national and international humanitarian principles, Nanda Ghosh, CJP’s Assam State in-charge, and legal team member, Abhijit Chowdhury have been involved in some efforts to provide moral support, facilitate family meetings, offer legal aid where possible. In cases where victim families encounter grave challenges in even meeting detainees at the detention camp, CJP’s team in Assam has been assisting with facilitating these meetings. There seems to be an air of despondency and despair as families try to grapple with the loss of their loved ones to the detention camps.  On one such visit by the team, a four year old who could not understand what has happened, asked, “Ora Maa’k niya gesega?” (“They took away my mother?”)

CJP’s Nanda Ghosh states that many of those detained have documents like any citizens of India. However, none of those proofs seem to hold any ground as heart-breaking stories of detentions have emerged from the ground.

During the team’s field visit, they encountered the heart-wrenching account of Korimon Nessa who is a member of the Deshi Muslim community^[2]. Korimon (Parimon) Nessa was taken from Bhakuamari village in Baksa district. A mother of three, her family continues to cope with her detention. Her husband is severely ill and disabled, and her three children are teenagers, who now have to take care of their father as well as other household duties.

CJP also came across the family of Haushi Khatun, one of the detainees, who has tried to visit the detention camp that Haushi was detained in. The family undertook the difficult and highly costly journey to the detention camp which is located at a remote location. Haushi’s husband narrated how Haushi was crying endlessly when she met them. Haushi’s 11-year-old son, Abdullah, dismal without his mother, told the team how, “Mother was only crying, and then I was also crying too. I have never been without my mother.”

Most of the 14 FT judgements came in the end of 2020 and beginning of 2021: several families have challenged these judgements in the Gauhati High Court.

Ashraf Ali further spoke to CJP about how inhumanely he was treated. Ali had been with his now-detained parents Jahur Ali and Sarifa Begum before he was separated from them. According to their voter identification documents, Jahur is about 85 years of age and his wife, Sarifa, about 79 years; both belong to the Goriya-Moriya Muslim community. Their son, Ashraf further states that not only do they have documents that are required by the government today, but they also have documents proving their presence in India from the times of the British Indian government. Many of these details of the family are corroborated by the village head (Gaon Burrah) Prabhat Das, who attests that Jahur Ali appeared for the matriculation exam in 1963 and first voted in 1965. Jahur and Sarifa’s young granddaughter could not control her tears when CJP’s team visited the family, the nine year old child asserted as she sobbed that her grandparents are not illegal immigrants or Bangladeshi.

CJP has only recently assisted over 50+ Indians to regain their citizenship. CJP’ Team Assam continues with its para-legal aid, documentation assistance and moral support for several of the families of the 14 affected detainees, most of whom will now seek legal recourse through the Gauhati High Court.

Presently, CJP’s team is having discussions with Korimon Nessa’s family, working with her documents, hopeful of making headway to approach the Gauhati High Court to help her and her family get justice. In the other cases wherever para-legal aid and documentation is required, the team is actively in the process of assisting.

^[1] Assam’s Foreigners Tribunals function as quasi-judicial bodies which have the judicial capacity to decide on cases related to foreigners, non-citizens, and D-voters under the Foreigners Act, 1946. These detention camps have come under increasing scrutiny for the deplorable human rights conditions within and the controversial criteria used to identify and send detainees.

^[2] In 2022, the Assam government officially acknowledged 4 million Assamese-speaking Muslims in the state as “indigenous Assamese Muslims,” and recognised them as a distinct part of the native Assamese community.

Related:

What does a month with CJP’s team in Assam look like?

CJP rescues a disabled man from the shackles of becoming stateless

Dalit woman declared as ‘Doubtful citizen’, CJP steps in to help

Resolute and Determined: CJP Assam makes headway through 2023

The post Assam: Fourteen persons despatched to detention camp, families left frantic appeared first on SabrangIndia.