Oh look who’s going back to their home?

In Assam, we welcome guests with open arms but those trying to illegally prolong their stay are treated with the special gesture of PUSHBACK.

18 illegal Bangladeshis pushed back today in wee hours from Cachar and Sribhumi. pic.twitter.com/9U9fZobTNL

— Himanta Biswa Sarma (@himantabiswa) July 5, 2025

In his social media post, Sarma reiterated the state’s position: while Assam welcomes guests, illegal residents would not be permitted to stay. The early-morning operation, executed by Assam Police, was part of an intensified campaign against undocumented immigrants, with Sarma stating that nearly 330 such individuals have been expelled from the state in the past month alone.

For far too long have illegal infiltrators gone scot free.

WE ARE TOLERATING IT NO MORE.

We have begun intensified operations against illegal infiltrators and in the last 1 month, in Cachar district alone, we have pushed back 88 Bangladeshis and Rohingyas back to Bangladesh. pic.twitter.com/e7fDcWLLk8

— Himanta Biswa Sarma (@himantabiswa) June 25, 2025

Security officials, however, have raised red flags. As per India Today NE, it has been reported that many individuals deported under this policy managed to return shortly after being expelled, some allegedly through porous borders in Meghalaya. Several were reportedly refused entry by the Border Guards Bangladesh (BGB), particularly those identified as Muslims, due to lack of coordination or documentation.

These individuals are believed to have been pushed into no man’s land by the Border Security Force (BSF), often during night hours, without proper documentation or adjudication through Foreigners Tribunals, raising serious concerns about violation of national and international legal norms.

July 7: CM Sarma Defends Crackdown, Announces Expansion of Eviction Drive

Speaking to reporters in Kokrajhar on July 7, Sarma defended the state’s actions and promised to expand the eviction campaign. He alleged that individuals from areas such as Karimganj, Dhubri, Chappar, and Silchar had begun settling in Lakhimpur, leading to their eviction to “protect the land rights of the indigenous people.”

“If anyone has a problem with the removal of 350 illegal Bangladeshis, they will have to bear it. Many people have been martyred in the fight to drive Bangladeshis out,” said Sarma, according to the report of India Today NE.

The Chief Minister further stated that the campaign would not be halted due to political criticism. “Now they [opposition parties] are doing politics in the name of this girl to provide security to Bangladeshis,” he added, as reported by India Today NE, alleging that the real intent was to sabotage the BJP-led government’s campaign.

Sarma also announced that evictions would soon be carried out in Chappar, Dhubri, and Bodoland, stating, “No outsider should be allowed to enter Bodoland”.

PIL in Gauhati High Court: Pushback policy challenged as unconstitutional

These aggressive deportation measures have now come under judicial scrutiny. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the All BTC Minority Students Association in the Gauhati High Court alleges that the Assam government’s “push-back policy” is being implemented arbitrarily and in violation of Articles 14, 21, and 22 of the Constitution.

According to the report of LiveLaw, when the matter came up on June 27, a division bench comprising Justices Manish Choudhury and Mitali Thakuria was informed that several individuals had been detained and pushed back without any formal process. The petitioner’s counsel said he had collected the particulars of such individuals, whose whereabouts remain unknown after being picked up by the police.

According to the LiveLAw report, the PIL stated that “Deportation without notice, adjudication or opportunity to appeal constitutes a grave violation of constitutional due process… The State of Assam has undertaken an arbitrary policy of ‘push back’, which is bereft of the principles of natural justice.”

The matter is next listed for July 22, 2025. The petitioners had earlier moved the Supreme Court, but withdrew their plea after the Court expressed its inclination to dismiss it, opting instead to approach the High Court.

What does the petition entail?

1. No Tribunal Orders, No Deportation Proceedings: Violations of Foreigners Act alleged by petitioners

The plea highlights that the pushbacks are being carried out without any judicial declaration from the Foreigners Tribunals, as required under the Foreigners Act, 1946. It argues that such practices lack legal backing and amount to arbitrary and extrajudicial expulsions.

It also refers to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005), where the Court underscored the necessity of following due process in identifying and deporting foreign nationals, warning against wrongful deprivation of citizenship, particularly for vulnerable populations.

As per a report in Bar&Bench, the PIL also challenges the state’s interpretation of the Rajubala Das v. Union of India judgment dated February 4, 2025, which directed deportation of only 63 specific individuals with verified foreign nationalities. The petition contends that the state has wrongly used this order as a blanket licence to detain and push back many more without following legal procedures.

2. Pattern of Abuse: Allegations of Muslim profiling and secret detentions

According to the petition and supporting media reports, more than 50 individuals have been picked up from different districts and transferred to the Matia Detention Centre in Goalpara. These individuals were later handed over to BSF and allegedly expelled at night, without access to lawyers or family. The PIL also refers to the case of a government school teacher who was deported, indicating a pattern of wrongful identification and profiling.

The petition emphasises that once a person has entered Indian territory, pushbacks without a tribunal order or civil authority clearance are illegal under both domestic and international law, including Article 33 of the 1951 Refugee Convention, which India, though not a signatory, is bound to uphold in spirit as part of its constitutional commitment to human rights.

Aadhaar Under Watch: Assam moves to limit access for ‘fresh entrants’

In a related policy development, the Assam Cabinet is considering restricting Aadhaar card issuance. On July 5, Sarma announced that the government may introduce a law empowering only District Commissioners to approve Aadhaar applications for individuals over 18. He claimed that most adults already have Aadhaar, and limiting new issuances would prevent alleged illegal immigrants from gaining documentation.

“Fresh people coming from Bangladesh will not be able to take them,” Sarma said, as provided in the report of The Hindu, adding that the move would serve as an administrative filter against infiltration.

Experts, however, have warned that such restrictions could result in exclusion of genuine Indian citizens, particularly the poor, marginalised, and illiterate, many of whom struggle to prove documentation under existing mechanisms like the NRC or Aadhaar enrolment.

Assam’s aggressive deportation campaign, framed by the state as a defence of indigenous identity, is fast becoming a legal and human rights crisis. The ongoing PIL, multiple media exposés, and testimonies from affected communities point to a systematic subversion of constitutional protections and established legal processes.

Related:

Another Pushback Halted: SC stays deportation of woman declared foreigner, issues notice on challenge to Gauhati HC order

After incorrect detention claim, Gauhati HC was informed that Doyjan Bibi was handed over to BSF

“Bail once granted can’t be ignored”: Gauhati HC seeks legal basis for re-detentions of COVID-era released detainees

The post Bordering on illegality? 18 alleged Bangladeshis “pushed back” without due process, Legal challenge filed in High Court appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Since May 23, 2025 individuals declared to be Foreigners (Bangladeshi) (DFN) by the Foreigners Tribunals (FT), which are quasi-judicial bodies tasked with citizenship determination in Assam, have been arrested without any stated cause or any prior intimation and some of these individuals were pushed back into Bangladesh. This push back can more appropriately be defined as push out, as, none of the standard operating procedures related to deportation, like nationality status verification, had been carried out before these individuals were pushed out to Bangladeshi territory. Under these circumstances there was no obligation on part of Bangladesh to accept these people and resultantly these individuals were confined to the no man’s land between the two nations. This resulted in an absurd situation where individuals who had been arrested and pushed out have been, latter, found in Indian Territory. In one such case, Bakkar Ali vs. Union of India (UOI),  the Guwahati High Court (GHC) clearly stated that if the individual is again apprehended and sought to be deported, the proper procedure (is to) be followed in the process.

Few of the individuals who were pushed out had cases pending in the GHC and the Supreme Court (SC). Few of these individuals, according to the Chief Minister of Assam, were brought back through diplomatic dialogues with Bangladesh. Even more alarmingly, most of the individuals arrested and pushed out under this operation, had already been granted conditional bail by the Supreme Court orders dated May, 10, 2019 in WP(C) 1045/2018 -Supreme Court Legal Services Committee Vs. The Union of India and Ors and on April 15, 2020 passed in WP(C) (Suo Motu) 1/ 2020 during the Covid-19 pandemic. These orders granted conditional bail to DFNs who had spent more than either three or two years in detention centres. The government had not made any application or prayer, either in the GHC or the SC, relating to the cancellation of the bail granted. This was flagged by Justice Kalyan Rai Surana, speaking for the division bench comprising Justice Malsari Nandi during the hearing in the Sanidul Sheikh vs. UOI case, who stated:

‘You have not prayed before the court to recall all those orders granting bail. Once they are on bail, you will have to follow due process in order to take them into custody again. So somebody must have been overlooking this. Nobody thought that the order of a court needed to be cancelled or recalled before arresting them’.              

This observation by the division bench of Guwahati High Court clearly exposes the arbitrary and illegal nature of these arrests/detentions. At this point it is abundantly clear that the government can neither justify the arbitrary arrest of these individuals, as seen in Sanidul Sheikh vs. UOI, nor can they justify the practice of push back, as seen in Bakkar Ali vs. UOI. Hence the actions of the Assam government in since May 23, clearly appear to be entirely unjustified and were carried out in disregard to the due process. Detailed coverage of recent proceedings in the Gauhati High Court may be read here.

2) Deportation not ‘Push-Back’

Despite these visible procedural lapses in the arrest, detention and push back of DFNs, the   Chief Minister, Himanta Biswas Sarma has strongly defended the actions of his government in his speech during the special session of the Assam legislative assembly held on June 9, 2025. These justifications were based on his interpretation of judgements/orders given by the Supreme Court. The first court directive, cited by the Chief Minister, was made through a (misreading) of the orders passed in the Rajubal Das vs. UOI case. Sarma stated: ‘There is pressure on the state government from the Supreme Court also to act on expulsion of foreigners.”

While this statement is technically true, it also important that look into the orders passed by the court in the Rajubala Das case.  In this case, the apex court criticised the central and Assam government’s inability to deport individuals declared to be foreigners. The court especially criticised the government for not deporting four individuals who had been held in detention centres for more than three years. This not only violated the Supreme Court orders referred to earlier, but also violated article 21 of the Indian constitution which protects the live and liberty of an individual from arbitrary state action. Similarly the court was also unhappy with delay in Nationality Status Verification of the detainees, as this is an essential step in the process of deportation. Hence, the court directed both the Assam and the central governments to speed up the process of nationality status verification so that these individuals could be deported. The court did not, in any way, ask the Assam government to push individuals into Bangladesh without nationality status verification, as any action like this would itself be a violation of article 21 as it would endanger the lives of the individuals being pushed back. Hence the Chief Minister’s justification of his government’s actions is based on a very narrow reading of the court’s orders. A detailed analysis of the orders in the Rajubala case undertaken by Citizens for Justice and Peace, may be read here.

3) Misreading the 6a Judgement

The Chief Minister also cited the judgement given by the Supreme Court’s constitutional bench on the constitutional validity of section 6a of the Citizenship Act (1955). He stated:

The section 6a verdict affirms that the Immigrant (Expulsion from Assam) Act (1950) (IEAA) remains valid and operative. This means that to expel foreigners the government need not go to the tribunals. The 1950 act says that if the DC (Deputy Commissioner) prima facie thinks someone is a foreigner, they can be evicted from the state of Assam’

Based on this, he surmised: ‘Now that the state is empowered to evict people under the Immigrant (Expulsion from Assam) Act (1950), hence push back is normal’

While it is true that the IEAA allows the government to order the expulsion of certain immigrants from Assam and it is similarly true that the Supreme Court affirmed the validity of the IEAA, the claims made by the Chief Minister are, fortunately, unjustified. To better understand the role of IEAA within the broader field of citizenship determination in Assam one needs to refer to the relevant paragraphs of the constitutional bench’s majority judgement, i.e. 368- 382. Within these paragraphs it becomes apparent that the petitioners had contended that IEAA, being an enactment specific to the immigrants in Assam, should apply to the exclusion of the Foreigners Act (1946). In essence, the contention of the petitioners was that only the provisions of the IEAA should apply to Assam, overriding the Foreigners Act and its subsequent orders.

This contention was rejected by the constitutional bench as it saw no conflict between the two statutes and held that both of them supplement and complement each other under the framework of section 6a. In simpler terms, according to the 6a judgement, even if an individual is charged under the provisions of IEAA they will still have to be presented in front of the Foreigners Tribunals where due process will be followed. Hence the Chief Minister’s claims that the state is empowered to evict people, without referring the cases to the Foreigners tribunals is entirely unfounded and also directly contradictory to the Supreme Court’s judgement.

Lastly, even if we accept the Assam government’s interpretation of the 6a judgement, it still would not justify the expulsion of individuals as they were already out on bail, as mentioned earlier. The actions of the Assam government since May 23, 2025 are full of procedural lapses and seem to be based on flawed interpretations of Supreme Court judgements/ orders. These oversights seem to be a result of the regime’s eagerness to expel DNFs, which may be admirable to many, but; the government should be wary of the fact that any negation of due process, irrespective of the cause, drains the public’s trust on institutions.

(The authors: Samik Roy Chowdhury is a PhD Scholar at the Institute of Development Studies Kolkata, Nargis Choudhury, a PhD Scholar, The Assam Royal Global University and Gorky Chakraborty, an Associate Professor, Institute of Development Studies Kolkata)

Related:

SC stays deportation of woman declared foreigner, issues notice on challenge to Gauhati HC Order

No breach, no recall, yet detained again: Gauhati HC seeks affidavit from State for re-detentions of COVID-era released detainees

Pushed Back, Let Down: How the state has let down the marginalised in Assam

The post Disregarding Due Process: Debunking the justification of push-outs in Assam appeared first on SabrangIndia.

While the Supreme Court’s last order rightly observed that “indefinite detention in detention camps violates basic rights”, including the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution and India’s obligations under international human rights law, by explicitly eschewing lack of process, the proceedings have been quoted for this hostile action by the state government.

As a result, the Assam Government has adopted an arbitrary “push –back” policy in the state. On  June 11, 2025 the Chief Minister of the state, Himanta Biswa Sharma went several steps further and defiantly announced that persons suspected to be illegal immigrants could be deported to Bangladesh even if their names appear in the National Register of Citizens (NRC).

On May 25, Manowara Begum, was detained by the Dhubri Police station, even though the petition for determination of her citizenship is pending before the Supreme Court. Further, on May 24, Khairul Islam and 8 others were picked up and detained by the Assam Police on charges of being a foreigner. These are some of the several cases of detentions and deportations being conducted without following due process.

Details of court proceedings in several of these matters, some supported by the Citizens for Justice and Peace may be read here, here and here and here.

The All BTC Minority Students Union (ABMSU) had filed a petition against this “push-back” policy directly in the Supreme Court on June 2, 2025 which was declined.

This short piece examines the ongoing deportation campaign that amounts to a grave violation of constitutionally guaranteed rights, including the Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21 and the Right to Equality under Article 14, in addition to breaching India’s international obligations under human rights law.

The functioning of Foreigner Tribunals

The current deportations target people who have been declared as Foreign Nationals and detained by one of the many FTs established in Assam. It therefore becomes essential to examine the functioning of these tribunals. FTs are quasi-judicial bodies which have been long criticized for arbitrary rulings, lack of independence, and procedural lapses.

As per the Foreigners (Tribunal) Order, 1964, the Central Government appoints the presiding members of the tribunal. They government also determines the terms of service including salary, term, etc. These powers have now been delegated to the State government in accordance to the Foreigners Act, 1946. This clearly shows executive overreach and violates of the principle of separation of powers.

Additionally, the tribunals put the onus on suspected people to prove their citizenship. An article by the caravan highlights the arbitrary procedure followed by FTs including the suspects not being provided with legal aid, the proceedings being held in private and opportunity to cross-examine the inspecting officer being denied. Further, ex-parte orders are routinely passed by these tribunals.

These practices violate Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention, and Article 14 of the ICCPR, which guarantees the Right to a fair trial. Additionally, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has affirmed that any deprivation of liberty resulting from an unfair trial falls within Category III of its classification and is, by definition, arbitrary.

They also constitute a clear breach of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which safeguards the right to life and liberty. Moreover, Article 22 provides safeguards against arbitrary detention and arrests. In the case of Anand Kundu v. Union of India, the Guwahati High Court held that the detention of suspects is preventive in nature, to ensure that the suspects do not vanish. However, even preventive detention has to follow due process as per Article 22 of the Constitution such as providing an opportunity of hearing before competent judges and informing of their charges. The Supreme Court reiterated this in the case of Pebam Ningol Mikoi Devi v. State of Manipur & Ors. In this case, the apex court emphasised that in India “the utmost importance is given to life and personal liberty of an individual”.

The Supreme Court has, itself on several occasions has overturned judgments by FTs and Guwahati High Court, declaring individuals’ foreigners even when they had provided adequate documents to prove their citizenship. In the case of Md. Rahim Ali v. The State of Assam, the Supreme Court overturned the Guwahati High Court’s judgment upholding the FT’s order declaring the Appellant a Foreigner. The Court also called the order a ‘grave miscarriage of justice’. The court’s direction for deportation in this light comes as a shock. Further, deportations when the detainees have not even exhausted their right to appeal is again a serious deprivation of rights, and sadly the Apex court that is supposed to uphold constitutional rights has taken a step back.

Another issue with these deportations is that these are being conducted without any consultation with the Government of Bangladesh. Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) grants the Right to a nationality and provides that no one should be arbitrarily deprived of the same. The lack of consultation, therefore, might lead to statelessness of such individuals and irreversible Human Rights violation. Moreover, deportation without due process clearly violates Article 19 of the Indian Constitution which guarantees the Right to Reside in India.

The current deportation drive also disproportionately targets the Muslim minority population of Assam violating Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The judicial failure to intervene in this matter reflects a broader systemic collapse in protecting the rights of the most vulnerable. The functioning of the Foreigners Tribunals and the arbitrary nature of the deportation drive collectively amount to a grave miscarriage of justice. In a democracy founded on the rule of law, such violations must not go unchecked. The judiciary, as the guardian of fundamental rights, must reclaim its role in safeguarding constitutional and human rights, especially for those who lack the means to defend themselves.

(The student is a fourth‑year law student at Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar)

Related:

Gauhati HC closes Habeas petition after Hasinur’s release from detention, declines compensation while acknowledging procedural default

Gauhati HC: Union government admits Samsul Ali was handed over to BSF, Court grants family visitation rights if not yet deported

The Immigrant Expulsion from Assam Act, 1950: Re-evaluating executive powers in light of judicial pronouncements and due process

Gauhati HC orders verification of police attendance records in re-arrest of two bail-compliant detainees in Torap Ali case

Gauhati HC grants visitation rights after state confirms Doyjan Bibi is in Kokrajhar Holding Centre

“Illegal detention not even for a minute”: Gauhati HC orders immediate release of bail-compliant detainee in Assam

The post Pushed Back, Let Down: How the state has let down the marginalised in Assam appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Immigrant Expulsion from Assam Act, 1950 (hereinafter IEAA) emerged from the unique and tumultuous socio-political landscape of post-Partition India. Enacted to address the significant influx of migrants into Assam, primarily from what was then East Bengal (later East Pakistan, and now Bangladesh), the IEAA was a legislative response to demographic shifts perceived as impacting the region’s economy and social fabric. At the time of its enactment, the general framework of the Foreigners Act, 1946, did not extend to individuals migrating from the newly formed Dominion of Pakistan, necessitating a specific statute for Assam which was experiencing a particularly acute situation.

Recently, the IEAA has been thrust into the spotlight due to interpretations suggesting it confers, or that the Supreme Court of India has affirmed its conferral of, extensive and summary expulsion powers upon district administrative authorities, such as District Collectors or Deputy Commissioners. This interpretation, notably articulated by Assam’s Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, posits that these authorities can expel individuals deemed to be foreigners under the IEAA without recourse to the established quasi-judicial process of the Foreigners Tribunals. Such an interpretation implies a significant departure from the procedural safeguards that have evolved in Indian administrative and constitutional law concerning the determination of nationality and the profound act of deportation.

This article contends that such an interpretation is a fundamental misreading of the IEAA itself, is not substantiated by a careful analysis of the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in In Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955 and stands in opposition to established principles of administrative law and due process.[1] This piece builds on an earlier work discussing the processes and procedures of deportation, which can be accessed here.

Far from endorsing an unfettered executive power of expulsion at the district level, the Supreme Court’s pronouncements, when read holistically, suggest an integration of the IEAA within the existing, more elaborate procedural framework for identifying and dealing with foreigners. The erratic understanding appears to arise from a selective and decontextualized reading of both the 1950 Act and the Supreme Court’s observations, potentially fuelled by a desire for more expedited executive action in a complex and sensitive domain. The timing of this re-interpretation, particularly following the Supreme Court’s judgment, suggests an attempt to leverage judicial pronouncements to legitimise a pre-existing executive inclination towards summary powers, overlooking the nuanced directives for the harmonized application of various statutes governing foreigners in Assam.

II. The Immigrant Expulsion from Assam Act, 1950: Legislative intent and provisions

An examination of the IEAA’s text is essential to understand its original scope and intended operation. The pivotal provision concerning expulsion is Section 2, titled “Power to order expulsion of certain immigrants”. This section states as follows:

2. Power to order expulsion of certain immigrants.—If the Central Government is of opinion that any person or class of persons, having been ordinarily resident in any place outside India, has or have, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, come into Assam and that the stay of such person or class of persons in Assam is detrimental to the interests of the general public of India or of any section thereof or of any Scheduled Tribe in Assam, the Central Government may by order—

(a) direct such person or class of persons to remove himself or themselves from India or Assam within such time and by such route as may be specified in the order; and

 (b) give such further directions in regard to his or their removal from India or Assam as it may consider necessary or expedient:

Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to any person who on account of civil disturbances or the fear of such disturbances in any area now forming part of Pakistan has been displaced from or has left his place of residence in such area and who has been subsequently residing in Assam.

The basis for such an order is the Central Government’s “opinion” that the continued presence of the individual or group is “detrimental” to specified public interests. While the formation of an opinion involves subjective satisfaction, in the contemporary administrative law paradigm, such satisfaction cannot be arbitrary or devoid of objective material; it remains susceptible to judicial review on grounds of mala fides, non-application of mind, or reliance on irrelevant considerations, particularly when fundamental rights—Article 14 and 21 in this case— are implicated. More on this is discussed in Part VI of this article. For now, let us get back to IEAA.

The Act further provides for the delegation of these powers. Section 3 of the IEAA, “Delegation of power,” states:

“The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that the powers and duties conferred or imposed on it by section 2 shall, subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the notification, be exercised or discharged also by—

(a) any officer subordinate to the Central Government.

(b) the Government of Assam, Meghalaya or Nagaland or any officer subordinate to that Government.”

This provision underscores that any power exercised by a District Collector or Deputy Commissioner under the IEAA would stem from a specific, conditional delegation by the Central Government. It is not an autonomous power. The nature and scope of such delegated authority are circumscribed by the conditions laid down in the notification and the parent Act itself. The claim that District Collectors inherently possess sweeping expulsion powers under the IEAA overlooks this crucial two-step process: the primary power resting with the Central Government, followed by a conditional delegation.

Furthermore, the Proviso to Section 2 of the IEAA introduces a significant qualification:

“Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to any person who on account of civil disturbances or the fear of such disturbances in any area now forming part of Pakistan has been displaced from or has left his place of residence in such area and who has been subsequently residing in Assam.”

This proviso indicates that even in 1950, the legislature intended to differentiate among categories of migrants, offering protection to those displaced due to civil disturbances. This nuanced approach undermines any interpretation of the IEAA as an indiscriminate tool for the summary expulsion of all individuals who might have entered Assam from territories that became Pakistan. It suggests a legislative intent sensitive to humanitarian concerns, even within an Act focused on expulsion.

The original legislative intent, as contextualized by the Supreme Court, was to address a specific gap: the Foreigners Act, 1946, did not initially apply to immigrants from Pakistan (as it was then) specifically, and Assam was facing a unique migratory pressure. The IEAA was thus a targeted measure for a particular historical moment, preceding the more comprehensive and procedurally detailed framework later established by the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964.

III. Decoding the Supreme Court’s Judgment in In Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955

The Supreme Court’s judgment in In Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955 is central to the current debate. A careful reading of the opinions of the learned judges is necessary to ascertain what the Court actually said about the IEAA and its interplay with other laws.

Chief Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud’s Opinion

CJI Justice Chandrachud(as he was then), in his opinion, provided a historical overview of the IEAA, noting its enactment was prompted by the fact that the Foreigners Act, 1946, initially did not cover immigrants from Pakistan, and that the IEAA was specifically applied to Assam to deal with large-scale immigration from East Bengal. The Foreigners Act’s limitation was due to the fact that it was enacted during the British rule and the limitation was rectified via an amendment in 1957.

This historical context is vital, as it positions the IEAA as a measure designed to fill a legislative void that was subsequently addressed by more comprehensive legal frameworks.

Justice Chandrachud’s opinion, while not having any declarations over whether the IEAA survives or not, had two crucial points.

1. Parliament did not want the powers given by IEAA to be used against those who were refugees that have migrated into India in account of civil disturbances or the fear of it (Para 53).
2. The act only applied to the state of Assam meaning—not only that these powers can only be granted to the district authorities in Assam, but the exercise of these powers can also only be against the immigrants in Assam and not rest of India (Para 53). This means that forcibly transporting alleged immigrants to Assam and using IEAA to deport them is not lawful.

Justice Surya Kant’s opinion for the majority

Justice Surya Kant’s opinion, on behalf of himself and Justices M.M. Sundresh and Manoj Misra, contains several crucial points regarding the IEAA.

1. Critically, Justice Kant stated that the IEAA and the Foreigners Act, 1946, are not in conflict and, in fact, “supplement and complement each other within the framework of Section 6A” (Para 376). This statement directly counters any notion that the IEAA operates in isolation with overriding powers, suggesting instead a synergistic relationship.
2. Referencing Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, Justice Surya Kant affirmed that the IEAA, the Foreigners Act, 1946, the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, and the Passport Act, 1967, all apply to the State of Assam.[2] This reinforces the understanding of a composite legal framework governing foreigners in Assam, rather than the IEAA standing as a singular, overriding statute.
3. One of the key directives issued by the Bench for which Justice Surya Kant authored the opinion is: “The provisions of the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 shall also be read into Section 6A and shall be effectively employed for the purpose of identification of illegal immigrants. (Para 391)“ The phrasing “read into Section 6A” and “employed for the purpose of identification” strongly suggests an integrative and procedural application. Section 6A (1)(b) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 itself defines “detected to be a foreigner” by reference to the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. If the IEAA were intended to provide an alternative, tribunal-exempt route for expulsion, the judgment would likely have clarified this. Instead, its use is linked to “identification,” which is a primary function leading to or forming part of the tribunal process.
4. Justice Surya Kant further opined as follows about the scope of both IEAA and the Foreigners Act, 1946:

As discussed above, IEAA is only one of the statutes that addressed a specific problem that existed in 1950. The issue of undesirable immigration in 1950 necessitated the promulgation of the IEAA and the granting of power to the Central government to expel such immigrants. On the contrary, the provisions of Section 6A have to be viewed from the focal point of 1971, when Bangladesh was formed as a new nation and an understanding was reached to grant citizenship to certain classes of immigrants who had migrated from erstwhile East Pakistan, as has been detailed in paragraphs 230 and 231 of this judgement. Hence, Section 6A, when examined from this perspective, is seen to have a different objective—one of granting citizenship to certain classes of immigrants, particularly deemed citizenship to those immigrants who came to India before 01.01.1966 and qualified citizenship, to those who came on or after 01.01.1966 and before 25.03.1971.

Since the two statutes operate in different spheres, we find no conflict existing between them. The Parliament was fully conversant with the dynamics and realities, while enacting both the Statutes. The field of operation of the two enactments being distinct and different and there being a presumption of the Legislature having informed knowledge about their consequences, we decline to hold that Section 6A is in conflict with a differently situated statute, namely the IEAA.

Instead, we are satisfied that IEAA and Section 6A can be read harmoniously along with other statutes. As held in Sarbananda Sonawal (supra), none of these Statutes exist as a standalone code but rather supplement each other. [Paras 379, 380 & 381]

Justice J.B. Pardiwala’s Opinion

Justice Pardiwala, in his dissent over the validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, touches upon IEAA but not in any substantial terms.

Collectively, these opinions affirm the continued validity and operability of the IEAA but situate its application within the broader, evolved legal framework governing foreigners. There is no explicit statement in any of the opinions that the IEAA empowers District Collectors to expel individuals based on a prima facie “opinion” without reference to the Foreigners Tribunals, nor that such an “opinion” under IEAA can substitute a tribunal’s quasi-judicial finding. Such a significant departure from the established Tribunal system, if endorsed by the Supreme Court, would have necessitated clear and unambiguous language, which is conspicuously absent.

IV. Why the Supreme Court Judgment disallows an inference of unfettered expulsion powers under IEAA, 1950

The assertion that the Supreme Court’s judgment in In Re: Section 6A  grants, or affirms, sweeping summary expulsion powers to District Collectors under the IEAA, thereby bypassing the Foreigners Tribunals, is not borne out by a careful reading of the judicial pronouncements. Several arguments counter this interpretation:

First, the judgment, particularly Justice Surya Kant’s opinion, emphasizes integration and supplementation, not supersession. The directive to “read into Section 6A” and employ the IEAA “for the purpose of identification of illegal immigrants” (Para 391(e)) implies that the IEAA is to function as a component within the broader machinery. Section 6A (1)(b) of the Citizenship Act itself defines “detected to be a foreigner” as detection “in accordance with the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 by a Tribunal constituted under the said Order”. If the IEAA were to provide a parallel mechanism that bypasses this definition for expulsion purposes, the Supreme Court would have had to explicitly state that the requirement of tribunal-based detection could be circumvented under the IEAA. No such statement is made. Instead, the IEAA’s role is linked to “identification,” which is the preliminary step that often leads to a reference to a Foreigners Tribunal for a conclusive determination of status.

Second, the power delineated in Section 2 of the IEAA is primarily vested in the Central Government. While Section 3 allows for the delegation of this power, such delegation is subject to conditions specified in the notification. Crucially, delegated power cannot be exercised in a manner that contravenes fundamental due process requirements or ignores established statutory mechanisms like the Foreigners Tribunals, especially when the Supreme Court itself links the IEAA’s contemporary use to “identification” within the Section 6A framework. The scope of delegated authority cannot be broader than the power of the delegating authority when read in conjunction with other prevailing laws and constitutional mandates ensuring procedural fairness.

Third, the Supreme Court’s affirmation of the IEAA’s validity and continued operability signifies that the Act remains on the statute books and can be invoked. However, this affirmation does not translate into a license to use the Act in a manner that disregards the specialised, quasi-judicial mechanism of Foreigners Tribunals. These tribunals are specifically established for the determination of a person’s status as a foreigner – a critical determination that must precede the severe consequence of expulsion. The interpretation that “valid and operative” means “valid for summary, independent action” is a misconstruction; the Act is valid as part of the legal toolkit, not as a master key that overrides other procedural safeguards.

Fourth, the profound implications for due process and individual liberty that would arise from granting summary expulsion powers to District Collectors, bypassing tribunals, are such that if the Supreme Court intended to endorse such a system, it would have done so explicitly and with clear reasoning. The Court’s silence on this specific point, coupled with its emphasis on the integrated and complementary application of the relevant statutes, is telling. The judgment upholds the IEAA’s existence but implicitly requires its application to be harmonized with the current, more evolved procedural framework for determining foreigner status. The focus on “identification” by Justice Surya Kant (J. Surya Kant, Para 391(e)) is pivotal. Identification is typically the precursor to adjudication by a Tribunal. If the IEAA allowed a District Collector to identify and expel based solely on a “prima facie” view, as suggested by Assam CM, the elaborate and long-standing Foreigners Tribunal system in Assam would be rendered largely redundant for a significant category of cases – an outcome the Supreme Court does not appear to endorse.

V. Harmonising the IEAA 1950 with the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964

The Foreigners Act, 1946, particularly Section 3, empowers the Central Government to make orders, inter alia, for prohibiting, regulating, or restricting the entry of foreigners into India or their presence therein. It is under this provision that the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, was promulgated, establishing Foreigners Tribunals specifically for the quasi-judicial determination of whether a person is a foreigner. This mechanism is central to the definition of “detected to be a foreigner” in Section 6A (1)(b) of the Citizenship Act and is frequently referenced in the Supreme Court’s judgment as the established process.

A harmonious construction, consistent with the Supreme Court’s directive to “read into Section 6A” and use the IEAA “for identification” [J. Surya Kant, Para 391(e)], would mean that information gathered or preliminary assessments made by the district administration (as a delegate of the Central Government under IEAA Section 3) could form the basis of a reference to a Foreigners Tribunal. The “opinion” of the Central Government (or its delegate) under IEAA Section 2 that a person’s stay is “detrimental,” could serve as a ground for initiating a formal inquiry or making such a reference. However, the crucial determination of foreigner status itself, which is a prerequisite for expulsion under either Act, would remain within the purview of the Foreigners Tribunals, as per the dominant legislative scheme and procedural due process.

This interpretation aligns with Justice Surya Kant’s observation that the IEAA and the Foreigners Act “supplement and complement each other”, rather than the IEAA providing an overriding, summary power that displaces the tribunal system. The Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, provides a specific and more recent procedural mechanism for the determination of foreigner status.

The IEAA, on the other hand, is broader in identifying the class of persons who can be expelled and the ultimate executive authority responsible (the Central Government or its delegate). Harmonisation suggests that the IEAA identifies who might be subject to expulsion and by whom the ultimate executive order of expulsion might be issued, while the Foreigners Act and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order provide the process for establishing the critical precedent fact – whether the individual is indeed a foreigner. The term “identification” used by Justice Surya Kant is distinct from “adjudication” or “declaration” of foreigner status. District administration can play a role in preliminary identification (i.e., forming a prima facie suspicion), but the quasi-judicial adjudication of that status, given its severe consequences, aligns with the specialized role of Foreigners Tribunals.

VI. Jurisprudential foundations: Due Process and limitations on executive power in expulsion

The exercise of any statutory power, particularly one as impactful as expulsion, must be viewed through the prism of India’s evolved constitutional jurisprudence. Administrative law principles, especially those concerning natural justice (audi alteram partem, rule against bias) and the requirement for reasoned decisions, have been significantly strengthened by the Supreme Court over decades. An archaic statute like the IEAA, 1950, cannot be interpreted in a vacuum, isolated from these constitutional developments. The principle of “updating construction” requires that older statutes be read, as far as possible, in conformity with later constitutional norms and human rights jurisprudence. The IEAA, therefore, must operate within the current legal environment where procedural fairness is paramount.

For example, in Hukam Chand Lal vs. Union of India, the government disconnected the person’s telephones, citing a “public emergency” due to their alleged use for illegal forward trading (satta). The Supreme Court found the disconnection unlawful.[3] It held that the authority, the Divisional Engineer, failed to apply his own mind and record his own satisfaction that an emergency existed. Instead, he acted solely on the government’s declaration. The Court ruled that such drastic powers require the designated authority to rationally form their own opinion, not just follow orders.

In S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court addressed whether administrative authorities must provide reasons for their decisions.[4] In this case, the Court laid down a landmark principle: the requirement to record reasons is a part of natural justice. It held that providing reasons ensures fairness, prevents arbitrariness, guarantees application of mind by the authority, and enables effective judicial review.

The determination of whether a person is a foreigner, a decision that can lead to expulsion, has profound consequences for individual liberty, family life, and personal security. Such a determination inherently demands a fair, transparent, and quasi-judicial process. To contend that the IEAA allows for summary expulsion based solely on an executive “opinion,” without a quasi-judicial hearing by a specialized body like a Foreigners Tribunal, would be to argue for a procedure that is likely to be deemed arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Article 21 guarantees that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law, and such procedure must be fair, just, and reasonable.

The very establishment and continued strengthening of the Foreigners Tribunal system over several decades signifies a legislative and judicial recognition that determining foreigner status is a complex matter requiring a specialized, quasi-judicial approach. While there are issues with the current system of foreigner tribunals, the way is not to go backward in terms of procedural fairness but to move forward to make processes fairer. This evolution points away from purely executive determinations of such critical facts, especially when a statutory framework for quasi-judicial assessment is in place.

VII. Conclusion: Upholding the rule of law and procedural propriety

The analysis of the Immigrant Expulsion from Assam Act, 1950, the relevant provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946, the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, and the Supreme Court’s judgment in In Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955  leads to the firm conclusion that the IEAA does not confer unfettered, summary expulsion powers upon district administrative authorities that would allow them to bypass the established quasi-judicial framework of the Foreigners Tribunals.

The Supreme Court’s judgment, far from endorsing such an interpretation, supports an integrated and harmonized application of these statutes. Justice Surya Kant’s directive to “read into Section 6A” and employ the IEAA “for the purpose of identification of illegal immigrants” [ J. Surya Kant, Para 391(e)] indicates that the IEAA is to be used as a tool within the broader framework, likely to initiate inquiries or make references to the Foreigners Tribunals, which remain the designated bodies for the quasi-judicial determination of a person’s status as a foreigner. This interpretation is consistent with the principle that specific procedural statutes (like the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order) govern the determination process, while the IEAA may provide grounds or identify the authority for expulsion once such determination is made.

The constitutional imperatives of due process, enshrined in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, mandate that any action as severe as determining nationality and ordering expulsion must be preceded by a fair and just procedure. In the context of Assam, this procedure is embodied in the Foreigners Tribunal system. Any interpretation that suggests the IEAA allows District Collectors to unilaterally form an “opinion” and expel individuals without recourse to these tribunals is not only a misreading of the Supreme Court’s recent judgment but also runs contrary to the evolution of administrative and constitutional law in India. Such an approach would be detrimental to the rule of law and could lead to arbitrary outcomes, eroding public trust in the legal system’s ability to handle complex immigration issues with fairness and consistency.

The constitutionally appropriate approach is for the district administration—acting under powers delegated by the Central Government, including those under the IEAA—to identify suspected illegal immigrants and refer their cases to the Foreigners Tribunals for a quasi-judicial determination of status. Deportation may then proceed in accordance with established legal procedures, which you can read about here. This ensures a balance between the state’s legitimate interest in managing immigration and its constitutional obligation to uphold the rule of law and procedural fairness.

(The author is part of the legal research team of the organisation)

[1] 2024 INSC 789

[2] (2005) 5 SCC 665

[3] AIR 1976 SUPREME COURT 789

[4] 1990 (4) SCC 564

Related:

Gauhati HC questions legal basis of re-detention of bail-compliant detainee, orders verification of police attendance record

Seeking sanctuary, facing scrutiny: Why India must revisit its approach to the displaced

Gauhati HC: Union government admits Samsul Ali was handed over to BSF, Court grants family visitation rights if not yet deported

Holding centres, missing memos, and silent transfers: Gauhati HC hears 5 petitions filed by families of Bengali-speaking Muslim detainees in Assam

India: A deep dive into the legal obligations before “deportation”

CJP submits supplementary memo to NHRC with survivor and family testimonies on Assam’s expulsions of Bengali-speaking Muslims

The post The contested interpretation of the Immigrant Expulsion from Assam Act, 1950 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On June 16, the Gauhati High Court declined to grant interim protection in the petition filed by Torap Ali, but directed the Standing Counsel for the Foreigners Tribunal to obtain a verification report from the concerned police station regarding whether the two detained persons — Abu Bakkar and Akbar Ali — were complying with the weekly reporting conditions of their COVID-era bail prior to being picked up again by Assam Border Police on May 24, 2025.

This crucial direction, focusing on attendance verification, may determine the legality of their continued detention — especially if it is shown that the men were fulfilling the conditions set out in their 2020–21 bail orders issued under the Supreme Court’s directions. The said order was delivered by the Division Bench of Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Malasri Nandi during the third hearing of the said matter.

As the matter was taken up, the Standing Counsel for the Foreigners Tribunal requested two additional days to file the State’s affidavit, explaining that instructions were awaited. The Court granted this request and listed the matter for June 20, 2025.

The petitioner’s counsel requested that the Court clarify that no deportation or further adverse action should take place until the affidavit is filed and the matter heard. However, the Court declined to grant protection, after learning that the FT declaration had earlier been challenged and dismissed, and that no fresh challenge had been filed prior to the detention. The Court observed that it could only grant such protection in cases whether the foreigner status was being challenged.

Despite refusing interim protection, the Court gave a key procedural direction: it instructed the FT counsel to obtain particulars from the concerned police station regarding whether the detainees, who were earlier released on bail, had been complying with their reporting obligations.

This police verification is now central to the next phase of the case — as bail compliance under judicially issued orders may raise serious questions about whether the re-arrest and continued detention were in violation of due process.

The June 16 order may be read below.

Why attendance matters?

Both Abu Bakkar and Akbar Ali, residents of Bhukuradia village, Kamrup district, had been declared foreigners by FT No. 4, Kamrup in 2017. They were subsequently detained and later granted bail during the COVID-19 pandemic, after having completed over two years in custody — under guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu WP(C) 1/2020 and adopted by the Gauhati High Court.

Their bail conditions required them to report weekly to the local police station — a compliance regime that many of the now detainees have followed for years without breach.

In the petition filed by their nephew Torap Ali, it was asserted that both men had been faithfully reporting to the police station every week, and that there had been no cancellation of bail or fresh order of detention prior to May 24 — the date they were suddenly picked up from their residence at night by Border Police without any arrest memo or warrant.

If the police attendance register shows that they were reporting as required up to May 2025, the State may face questions on whether the re-arrest was in complete violation of lawful bail protections, and whether procedural safeguards under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution were ignored.

It is essential to note that the High Court’s direction in Torap Ali case to verify police station attendance mirrors the decisive factor that led to relief in the Mozida Begum v. Union of India and ors case that was issued by the Gauhati High Court in the same day. In that matter, the detainee — Hachinur @ Hasinur — was released from custody after the Gauhati High Court found that he had been complying with the weekly police reporting conditions of his COVID-era bail. The Court held that re-arresting a bail-compliant individual without cancelling the earlier order was “expressly illegal.” That case hinged on the submission of a signed attendance sheet from the local police station, which the bench treated as conclusive proof of compliance. In Torap Ali, the Court has now taken the first step in that same direction — ordering the FT counsel to obtain a similar verification report from the concerned police station. Whether the detainees were regularly reporting may prove equally pivotal in determining the legality of their continued detention. (Details of the Moziba Begum case may be read here.)

Summary of prior proceedings

1. May 28, 2025

The matter was first mentioned; FT counsel stated they had not received the pleadings. The Court adjourned the matter to the next day.

The order may be read here.

2. May 29, 2025

Petitioner informed the Court that Abu Bakkar and Akbar Ali had been re-arrested on May 24, despite being on bail and complying with conditions. The Court sought information from the State regarding their custody status.

The order may be read here.

3. June 4, 2025

The FT counsel submitted that both men were now lodged at Kokrajhar Holding Centre. The Court:

• Granted family visitation rights;
• Allowed the petitioner to obtain the detainees’ signatures on vakalatnamas;
• Directed the State to file an affidavit explaining the basis of arrest and detention by June 16.

The order may be read here.

4. June 16, 2025

At the hearing on June 16, no affidavit had been filed by the State, despite the Court’s June 4 direction. The FT counsel sought an extension of two days. Crucially, the Court directed that details regarding police station attendance must be obtained and submitted, especially since the bail orders were conditional upon weekly reporting. The police station records may now become central to the Court’s evaluation of whether:

• The re-arrest was lawful;
• Bail conditions were violated;
• Or whether, as seen in other recent cases, procedural norms were bypassed without basis.

The matter will next be heard on June 20, 2025.

Related:

Gauhati HC questions legal basis of re-detention of bail-compliant detainee, orders verification of police attendance record

Seeking sanctuary, facing scrutiny: Why India must revisit its approach to the displaced

Gauhati HC: Union government admits Samsul Ali was handed over to BSF, Court grants family visitation rights if not yet deported

Holding centres, missing memos, and silent transfers: Gauhati HC hears 5 petitions filed by families of Bengali-speaking Muslim detainees in Assam

India: A deep dive into the legal obligations before “deportation”

CJP submits supplementary memo to NHRC with survivor and family testimonies on Assam’s expulsions of Bengali-speaking Muslims

The post Gauhati HC directs verification of police records to see if detained men were following bail conditions before re-arrest appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Minajul Sheikh, a resident of Beldanga in Murshidabad district, told The Hindu that his brother Minarul Sheikh was picked up from Mumbai where he was working and subsequently forced into Bangladesh. Apart from Minarul Sheikh, at least two other workers were pushed into Bangladesh. The three workers — Minraul Sheikh and Nizamuddin Sheikh from Murshidabad and Mostafa Kamal Sheikh from Purba Bardhaman — also sent a video message to their relatives where they can be heard pleading before Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and other public representatives of the State to ensure their return to India.

It was only after the West Bengal government raised the issue, the workers were repatriated to India through the Mekhliganj border in Bangladesh on Sunday afternoon. Trinamool Congress Rajya Sabha member and chairperson of West Bengal Migrant Welfare Board Samirul Islam said when the workers were picked up by the police in Mumbai, all necessary documents were provided by the State government.

“What has happened is very unfortunate and illegal. These are citizens of India and cannot be illegally pushed into Bangladesh in such a manner,” Mr. Islam said.

On X he said, “Under the leadership and active intervention of our Chief Minister @MamataOfficial, we were finally able to repatriate seven Indian citizens who were illegally pushed back to Bangladesh by the BSF. The Maharashtra Police first detained them on suspicion of being Bangladeshis and then handed them over to the BSF, which carried out the final act of deporting these poor migrant workers to Bangladesh—only because they spoke Bengali. They were deported to Bangladesh despite they showed all relevant proof of being an Indian. 

I have some questions:

1. How did the Maharashtra Police hand over these migrant workers to the BSF without informing the West Bengal government?
2. Why didn’t the BSF contact the local administration to verify their identities before forcibly deporting them to another country?
3. Is there a larger plan by these BJP-ruled states and the BSF to target and harass Bengali-speaking migrant workers?

We will not let this issue go. We will expose the dark forces behind this misdeed and ensure justice.”

Under the leadership and active intervention of our Chief Minister @MamataOfficial, we were finally able to repatriate seven Indian citizens who were illegally pushed back to Bangladesh by the BSF. The Maharashtra Police first detained them on suspicion of being Bangladeshis and…

— Samirul Islam (@SamirulAITC) June 17, 2025

The officer-in-charge of the Mekhliganj Police Station Mani Bhusan Sarkar said that after he received information from police stations in Murshidabad and Bardhaman about the Indian nationals in Bangladesh, he informed authorities of the BSF and Border Guard Bangladesh. “The three men were handed over to us [Mekhliganj police station] after a flag meeting at the border,” the Officer-in-Charge said. According to sources, the three men were pushed into Bangladesh on Friday night somewhere along North Bengal and Bangladesh border.

Since mid-May 2025, in a cloak and dagger operation, without any public disclosure, some administrations in India have been “pushing back” undocumented Bangladeshi migrants detained across the country through the eastern border. The Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB) has expressed concern to India about the “push back” of individuals across the border, particularly undocumented migrants. Interestingly, there is no official word about the “push back” from the BSF. While instances of the “push back” of Bangladeshi nationals has come to the fore in Assam and Tripura, on this occasion, nationals of West Bengal were pushed into Bangladesh.

Meanwhile, Assam has seen the most aggressive of this policy in action. Citizens for Justice and Peace has been at the forefront of documenting and agitating the issue, both with the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the Gauhati High Court. The memorandums to the NHRC may be referred to here. No evidence of due process has been followed by the Assam police in detaining without notice, persons who have every reason to state –with documents—that they are Indian. The last month’s coverage of the crisis may be read here, here and here. 

Related:

Assam: Academics, lawyers, activists condemn ‘push back’ of persons to Bangladesh

Assam: When six ordinary Indian women were forcibly pushed out from India–No Man’s land– Bangladesh & then back

Assam: Slamming Sarma’s actions as discriminatory & unlawful, LOP, Assam Assembly Debabrata Saikia calls for an urgent stop to “pushback” of citizens

The post M’tra: Three West Bengal residents pushed into Bangladesh by BSF, return after WB state govt.’s intervention appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Nearly three weeks after her sudden and unannounced detention, on June 16, the Gauhati High Court granted visitation rights and legal access to Doyjan Bibi, the woman at the centre of the writ petition filed by her husband, Abdul Rejjak, under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.

The petition alleged that Doyjan Bibi had been picked up from her home in Gauripur, Dhubri district, on the night of May 24, 2025, without any warrant, arrest memo, or subsequent disclosure of her whereabouts. Since her detention, the family had received no formal communication regarding where she was being held — prompting the filing of a petition to trace her location and challenge the legality of her custody.

During the hearing, the counsel for the Foreigner’s Tribunal (FT) submitted that he had received verbal instructions over phone indicating that Doyjan Bibi is currently lodged at the Kokrajhar Holding Centre.

The bench comprising Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Malasri Nandi recorded the statement and passed an order:

• Allowing the petitioner, Abdul Rejjak, along with one family member, to visit Doyjan Bibi at the holding centre;
• Permitting the signature of the detained person on the vakalatnama, to facilitate proper legal representation in the ongoing petition;
• Listing the matter again on June 25, 2025, for further hearing.

Prior hearing (June 9): Revival of FT order cited, no location disclosed

At the earlier hearing on June 9, the FT counsel had informed the Court that Doyjan Bibi had been declared a foreigner by FT No. 4, Dhubri in 2017, in an ex-parte proceeding. That order had been set aside by a coordinate bench of the Gauhati High Court in 2021, on the condition that the detainee reappear before the FT. It was submitted that since she failed to appear, the original FT opinion had been revived, and her COVID-era bail cancelled.

However, during that hearing, the State had been unable to provide any official information about where Doyjan Bibi was being held, or under what authority she had been taken into custody. The Court had deferred substantive consideration of relief but sought information regarding her custody status.

Details of the hearing may be read here.

June 16 order: Limited relief, awaiting full disclosure

On June 16, the State could not provide any written record of detention or produce Doyjan Bibi in court. The only submission made was verbal — a telephonic update from the FT counsel — that she is presently in Kokrajhar Holding Centre.

The Court, while refraining from adjudicating on the legality of the detention at this stage, treated the FT counsel’s statement as sufficient basis to allow limited visitation and legal access.

The matter is now listed for further hearing on June 25.

Doyjan Bibi’s detention falls within a pattern of cases involving individuals:

• Declared foreigners by ex parte FT orders;
• Later released on bail following more than two years in detention, under Supreme Court directions during COVID-19;
• And subsequently re-arrested — allegedly without fresh legal orders, warrant, or procedural safeguards — in May 2025, often at night and without notice to family.

Gauhati HC order can be read below.

Related:

“Illegal detention not even for a minute”: Gauhati HC orders immediate release of bail-compliant detainee in Assam

Gauhati HC questions legal basis of re-detention of bail-compliant detainee, orders verification of police attendance record

Seeking sanctuary, facing scrutiny: Why India must revisit its approach to the displaced

Gauhati HC: Union government admits Samsul Ali was handed over to BSF, Court grants family visitation rights if not yet deported

Holding centres, missing memos, and silent transfers: Gauhati HC hears 5 petitions filed by families of Bengali-speaking Muslim detainees in Assam

India: A deep dive into the legal obligations before “deportation”

CJP submits supplementary memo to NHRC with survivor and family testimonies on Assam’s expulsions of Bengali-speaking Muslims

The post Gauhati HC allows family visit after state confirms Doyjan Bibi’s detention in Kokrajhar centre appeared first on SabrangIndia.

However, throughout the day, during the one-day session, opposition MLAs and the Chief Minister engaged in a heated discussion on the contentious topic of citizenship: the speeches and deliberations centred around the manner in which the Assam police have been forcibly detaining people in the state in late night operations, wrongly dubbing them as “foreigners” since May 24/25, 2025. Under state target have been especially Bengali-speaking Muslims who have been –without recourse to due process –expelled to no man’s land, many of them have subsequently even returned home.

Leader of the Opposition in the Assembly, Debabrata Saikia led the charge by moving a motion in the Legislative Assembly, prompting the Chief Minister to respond. Several opposition MLA then took the floor, voicing their concerns and perspectives on the issue. The chief minister Himanta Biswas Sarma attempted to project himself as a saviour of the Assamese speaking communities, pushing the blame on previous Congress governments. This angered several members of the Opposition who took him on, point by point, in detail. They pointed out that the first declaration of ‘D-Voter’ (Doubtful Voter) took place in 1997 when the government was ruled by Prafulla Mahanta of the AGP (Asom Gana Parishad). Sarma also gave incorrect information in the House that the practice of creation of D-Voters was begun during the time of Hiteswar Saikia (Former Congress chief minister of Assam, who is also father of Debabrata Saikia), but the fact is that Hiteswar Saikia was died on April 11, 1996 and the practice of D-voters was started from 1997.

Himanta also defended the moves saying that the “push” was taking place in accordance with the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Order, 1950 and a recent Supreme Court order. Incidentally, the Citizens for Justice and Peace has in memorandum to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) detailed how no procedures at all were followed by the authorities while they conducted the recent drives. These may be read here and here.

Meanwhile, the members of the opposition were vociferous in the tactics being employed by the authorities, urging that, any foreigners identified in the state, who have entered after 1971 (the cut-off date in Assam Accord) should be sent abroad (deported) according to provisions of law and procedure and any repatriation agreement with neighbouring countries, however the hounding and torture of poor, innocent Indians under the slur/label of being “Bangladeshi” must be stopped.

The entire speech of the LoP in the Assam Assembly, Debabrata Saikia is being reproduced here:

Monday, June 9, 2005

“We all know that Assam Movement was held to expel foreigners and after the Assam Accord of 1985, among all clauses, Clause 5 was very important. (This is) because it talks about the identification of foreigners and (the process to be followed) to expel foreigners from India.

And to carry this out smoothly, NRC updation process was undertaken on the base of 1951 NRC. And, finally, in the year 2013, SC directed (the Assam government) to update the NRC in Assam.  And finally we have the final draft of the NRC dated August 31, 2019.

On July 22, 2018, through a press conference, the then Home minister Rajnath Singh said that even after the final NRC, Foreigners Tribunal will detect the citizenship of people. He also said that any person’s name that has been dropped out from the final draft of NRC, (even) he or she can appeal. When the draft was published, it was seen that 19 lakh people were excluded from the NRC. At the time, Rajnath Singh also announced that a ‘Rejection slip’ will be provided to (ensure that people undergo process) to include their name in the NRC and if needed Goverment will provide the legal aid.

Later also, (with a change of guard) the Home Minister, Amit Shah said that all help will be provided to the people left out from the NRC and only foreigners tribunal will decide on the citizenship. No person should think themselves as outsider, until or unless Foreigners Tribunal take a decision on this, he had said.

The Supreme Court (SC) also declared that in the judgement of Abdul Kuddus that if any person was declared as foreigner he can approach the High Court or Supreme Court in appeal.

After the release of the final draft list of the NRC, government authorities announced that 200 Special tribunals would be set up. However, in October 2023, 3,34,964 cases were reportedly disposed off by the tribunals, 96,146 cases are still ongoing in the FTs. A total of 10, 3764 people were reportedly declared foreigners.

However after the release of the Final Draft of the NRC (August 31, 2019), the government did not provide the rejection slip to those excluded from the list. And it is these who are facing many challenges challenge due to not being enrolled in the NRC. They are facing problems of Aadhaar card exclusion and exclusion from government welfare schemes because “only citizens can avail welfare of the state.”

Recently the Assam Government has “pushed back” more than 100 people based –ostensibly– on a judgement of the SC. People were (simply) left in the No Man’s land. Almost 1200 people were sent, possibly 1000 people didn’t come back but those sent from Assam were taken back again (this was in the context of persons sent from Gujarat, Delhi, etc.)

The Union Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar had said, when Indians were repatriated from America or at other times, according to the rules and regulations, no one should be considered a foreigner until proven so. The suffering inflicted on Indian citizens in Assam by labelling them as foreigners has been highlighted in the recent declaration.

Therefore, we demand that, rejection slips should be given through the National Register of Citizens (NRC) process. And, through the legal process, foreigners should be identified and those who are Indians should be included. According to a report of CJP (Citizens for Justice and Peace), during the NRC process in 2019, around 60 people in Assam attempted suicide due to various fears and trauma. Among them, 32 were Hindus and the rest belonged to other religions.

One such tragic incident was of a highly educated individual from Kharupetia, who held MA, LLB, and BT degrees, and worked as a teacher. He was subjected to constant taunts and comments like ‘Look Bangladeshi has come’ while walking on the streets or at market, which led him to take his own life in 2018 due to extreme fear and anxiety.

Recently, Sonabhanu from Barpeta was left in no man’s land in May (2025) while her appeal was still pending in the Supreme Court. Additionally, 51-year-old Khairul Islam from Morigaon was declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal and the High Court, and he has filed an appeal in the Supreme Court.

There are many such people for whom the verdict has not been delivered yet they have become victim of the government’s moves. Besides, the statement that citizenship will be granted based on a particular religion to those who are Bangladeshi, under the Citizenship Amendment Act 2014, which was mentioned in 2019, has brought shame to many. This is evident from the suicide of Nirad Baran Das ((On October 20, 2918 tragedy struck Kharupetia town in Darrang district of Assam, when a retired school teacher and advocate Nirod Baran Das “took his life by hanging himself to a fan in his home.” CJP’s report had stated that Das had become “fearful and insecure of being arrested, wrested of his citizenship, declared a non-Indian, took his own life after hanging himself from a fan in his home”, claiming, NRC had declared him a foreigner even though “he was born and brought up in the town where he taught” and was in “possession of all the legacy documents.”))

.Therefore (we demand), that the process (of expelling foreigners) should be carried out as per the Assam Accord. The manner in which (Indians), who are “merely suspected” as D-Voters (Doubtful Voters), are declared foreigners by the Foreigners Tribunal, and later proved not to be foreigners in the High Court – this process needs to be more realistic so that people are not wrongly labelled as foreigners.

Other interventions by opposition members in the Assam legislative assembly on June 9:

• Jakir Hussain Sikdar, MLA from the Sarukhetri Assembly constituency, and Assam Pradesh Congress Working President said, “The government’s foreigner identification process is fundamentally flawed. Identifying individuals without sufficient information and evidence is entirely incorrect. The government’s misguided decisions are wrongly labelling Indian citizens as foreigners.”
• Nurul Huda, MLA, Indian National Congress (INC) from the Rupohihat Assembly constituency said that the unlawful targeting of ordinary Indian people as foreigners is unacceptable,’ he said, cautioning that continued police harassment without due process will undermine faith in the Indian judiciary.
• Ashraful Hussain, AIUDF MLA from Chenga Assembly constituency stated that the Foreigners Tribunals in Assam operate under the direct influence of the state government, with the Home Department dictating their actions. He expressed deep concern that selectively targeting indigenous people based on religion, language, and race would be utterly unfortunate.

In his replies to the Opposition members, chief minister of Assam, Himanta Biswa Sarma stated that Government does not need to take NRC as reference for deportation of foreigners. He self-abrogated the powers to deport to the District Collector and myself, legally or illegally! He added, “We will further expedite the issue of foreign extradition in accordance with the Supreme Court’s judgment. All those who came after 1971 are foreigners.”

When the Opposition rebutted stating that many who were forcibly deported have returned, an unreptentant Himanta said, “”We have pushed back about 330 people, none of them have returned and there is no question of them coming back, and this push back will increase further.”  He added, “There are 35 more ready (to be sent): I will send them too (uses un-parliamentary language) “. He also mocked Congress for starting evictions, tribal belts and blocks, D-voters, detention camps, etc., and said that he is trying to do all these things now. He also claimed that like Prafulla Mahanta (former CM) who created D-Voters, he has garnered votes on the question of “expelling foreigners.” I on the other hand, am working for my ideology and that of my party (BJP) which is different. Sarma also made a rather outlandish claim, “Today the Deputy Speaker of Assam Assembly told me that I also have the power to review FT orders, so I will also make anyone who has been made Indian into a foreigner!.. “After Bimala Prasad Chaliha (Former CM of Assam), I am the only Chief Minister who has been able to make any foreign investments.”

At this point Akhil Gogoi Independent MLA from the Raijor Dol from the Sibsagar Assembly Constituency intervened, “It would be better if you spoke like a Chief Minister, please speak like a Chief Minister.” To which Sarma replied, “I want to speak like an Assamese.” He added, “I am the Chief Minister later, but I am an Assamese first. Whatever I say, I will say it like an Assamese, like a proud Assamese.”

Akhil Gogoi said, “You are not a proud Assamese, you are a Big Zero. In your day you could not send a single foreigner (out) legally, what you did you have sent illegally.” Himanta replied,”I will send legally and I will send illegally, yes I will send illegally. ”

Related:

Union Govt admits handover of Samsul Ali to BSF, Gauhati High Court grants family visitation rights if not yet deported

Does India have a lawfully established procedure on ‘deportation’, or are actions governed by Executive secrecy and overreach?

Assam: Academics, lawyers, activists condemn ‘push back’ of persons to Bangladesh

The post Assam: Stormy one day Assembly session, LoP Debabrata Saikia compels CM Himanta Sarma to respond appeared first on SabrangIndia.

What We Know So Far: June 9, 2025

The Gauhati High Court on Monday, June 9, heard four separate writ petitions invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, each seeking urgent relief and accountability in the cases of individuals who were allegedly picked up by Assam Police from their homes in Chirang and Dhubri districts between May 24–25, 2025, without any arrest memo, warrant, or formal production before a magistrate.

All four individuals — Doyjan Bibi, Samsul Ali, Majibur Rehman, and Abdul Sheikh — had previously been declared foreigners by Foreigners Tribunals (FTs), and were later released from detention under bail regimes notified by the State in accordance with Supreme Court directions during the COVID-19 period. All of these individuals are being provided legal aid by Citizens for Justice and Peace. They had all been regularly reporting to police as part of their bail conditions until the date of their sudden and unexplained apprehension. Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta appeared in these matters.

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!

In the hearings, the High Court addressed key factual developments in each case, including the revival of FT orders, lack of procedural documentation in alleged deportation, and confirmation of detainees’ custody in holding centres. While the Court granted limited relief — such as visitation rights and directions to trace detainees — the legality of the State’s actions and procedural safeguards during or prior to deportation remain under ongoing judicial scrutiny. The matters are being heard since Friday, June 6, 2025.

Meanwhile, through independent social media sources, CJP has found that Doyjan Bibi, a woman from India may be currently lodged in a jail in Bangladesh and Samsul Ali in a similarly distraught condition in No Man’s land between the two countries. See the memorandums submitted to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) here and here.

The matters are next listed between June 10 and June 20, 2025.

Case 1: Abdul Rejjak v. Union of India (Re: Doyjan Bibi)

Bench: Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and N. Unni Krishnan Nair

Status: Revival of FT Order due to non-compliance

Next hearing: June 16

The first case involved the petition filed by Abdul Rejjak, husband of Doyjan Bibi, who was picked up from her residence in Gauripur, Dhubri district on the night of May 24, 2025. She had previously been declared a foreigner by FT No. 4, Dhubri in 2017, and was detained for over two years before being released in 2021.

Notably, in 2021, a coordinate bench of the Gauhati High Court had set aside the ex parte FT opinion that declared her a foreigner — subject to the condition that she reappear before the Tribunal to file her written statement and participate in fresh proceedings. According to the State’s submissions, Doyjan Bibi failed to appear before the FT on the reappointed date, leading to the revival of the original FT declaration and cancellation of bail.

The petitioner has argued that the non-appearance was due to a delay in receiving the court’s 2021 order and not due to wilful default. The Court took note of these circumstances and listed the matter for continued hearing on June 16, where it may further assess the legal consequences of non-compliance and whether any further relief is appropriate in light of the revived foreigner opinion.

The order may be viewed below:

Case 2: Bakkar Ali v. Union of India (Re: Samsul Ali)

Bench: Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and N. Unni Krishnan Nair

Status: BSF handover admitted; procedural details missing

Next hearing: June 10

In this petition, Bakkar Ali, a resident of Goraimari No. 2, sought a writ of habeas corpus for his father, Samsul Ali, who had been declared a foreigner in 2016 (FT Case No. BNGN/FT(CHR)2039/08), detained for over three years, and released in February 2020 in accordance with Supreme Court-mandated bail conditions. Since then, he had faithfully reported weekly to Panbari Police Station, with his last appearance recorded on May 21, 2025.

According to the petition, Samsul Ali was picked up by police around 11:30 PM on May 25 without any arrest memo, warrant, or judicial order. Despite efforts by the family to trace his whereabouts, the authorities refused to accept an FIR and provided no information.

During the hearing, the State admitted that Samsul Ali was handed over to the BSF, reportedly pursuant to a Government of India notification. However, no documentation or particulars of the handover — such as the BSF post, time, or any memorandum — were provided.

The Court expressed serious displeasure with the lack of procedural information and stated that the incomplete information was not at all appreciated. In the order, the bench noted that “The Superintendent of Police (Border), Chirang should have provided appropriate particulars.”

The Court directed that the SP (Border) Chirang must communicate with the FT counsel and transmit all relevant details via WhatsApp, including any official memorandum of handover. The matter has been listed for immediate hearing on June 10, with the Court expected to examine whether the deportation complied with legal procedures, including those outlined in the State’s own affidavit before the Supreme Court in Rajubala Das v. Union of India.

The order may be viewed below:

Case 3: Rejiya Khatun v. Union of India (Re: Majibur Rehman)

Bench: Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and N. Unni Krishnan Nair

Status: Detention in Holding Centre confirmed; visitation rights granted

Next hearing: June 20

In the third case, the Court heard a habeas corpus petition filed by Rejiya Khatun, wife of Majibur Rehman (also known as Majibur Sheikh), who had been declared a foreigner by FT Chirang in 2019. After completing two years in detention, he was released on November 15, 2021, under COVID-19 bail guidelines, and had been consistently reporting to Kajolgaon Police Station every week — his last recorded visit being May 21, 2025.

The petition alleged that he was picked up from his home in Salijhora at night on May 25, without any documentation or court order. For over two weeks, no information about his custody was shared with the family. Attempts to file an FIR were refused, and a complaint had to be sent by post.

In Court, the counsel for FT matters confirmed that Majibur Rehman is currently being held at the Kokrajhar Holding Centre. In response, the Court granted visitation rights to the petitioner and a maximum of two others and directed that his signature be obtained on the vakalatnama authorising legal representation. The petitioner’s counsel is to update the Court on the outcome of the visit. The case is listed for further hearing on June 20.

Details of the previous hearing may be read here.

The order may be viewed below:

Case 4: Sanidul Sheikh v. Union of India (Re: Abdul Sheikh)

Bench: Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and N. Unni Krishnan Nair

Status: Detention in Holding Centre confirmed; visitation rights granted

Next hearing: June 20

Similar in fact and structure to the previous matter, this petition was filed by Sanidul Sheikh, son of Abdul Sheikh, who was declared a foreigner ex parte in 2018 (FT Case No. BNGN/FT/CHR/220/07), detained for two years, and released in April 2021 under Supreme Court guidelines.

He had been reporting weekly to Kajolgaon Police Station, and was last seen signing the register on May 21, 2025. The family claims he was picked up by police from their residence in Chatibargaon at 11:30 PM on May 25 without any documentation, and subsequently disappeared. As in other cases, the family’s attempts to file an FIR were rebuffed.

During the hearing, the State submitted that Abdul Sheikh is detained at the Kokrajhar Holding Centre. The Court granted visitation rights, allowed up to two family members to accompany the petitioner, and instructed that his signature on a vakalatnama be collected. The matter is also listed for June 20, alongside the Majibur Rehman matter.

Details of the previous hearing may be read here.

The order may be viewed below:

Other such similar cases

While four of the habeas corpus petitions currently before the Gauhati High Court are being pursued with legal aid support from Citizens for Justice and Peace, they are by no means the only such instances. The case of Mozida Begum, who approached the Court independently regarding the sudden detention of her son Hachinur @ Hasinur, reflects that similar patterns of late-night police pick-ups, denial of access to legal process, and prolonged non-disclosure of whereabouts are affecting others beyond the immediate CJP-supported cases. Her case — involving a person released on bail and complying with reporting obligations — reinforces that these are not isolated incidents, but rather part of a larger trend impacting multiple families across Assam, raising shared concerns about procedural fairness, transparency, and the potential misuse of FT declarations to bypass due process protections.

Case: Mozida Begum v. Union of India (Re: Hachinur @ Hasinur)

Bench: Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Malasri Nandi

Status: Court issues interim stay on deportation of detainee; confirms he is held at Kokrajhar Holding Centre

Next hearing: June 11

On June 6, 2025, the Gauhati High Court heard the petition filed by Mozida Begum, mother of Hachinur @ Hasinur, a resident of Milan Nagar, Baladmari, Goalpara district. The petitioner moved the High Court after her son — a declared “foreigner” previously released on conditional bail — was suddenly picked up by the Border Police of Goalpara on May 25, 2025, despite regular compliance with bail conditions, including weekly reporting to the local police station.

The petitioner, represented by Advocate A.R. Sikdar, submitted that her son had been faithfully reporting to Goalpara Police Station, with his last three appearances logged on May 5, May 12, and May 19, 2025. These were duly acknowledged by the Officer-in-Charge, and an extract of the attendance register was annexed to the writ petition.

According to the petition, Hachinur was taken into custody on May 25 by personnel from the Border Police wing of Goalpara without prior notice, arrest memo, warrant, or any cancellation of his bail order. He was initially taken to the Goalpara Police Reserve, then transferred to the Transit Camp in Matia, where family members were told he was no longer in custody. Multiple inquiries by the family failed to elicit any information about his present location.

During the hearing on June 6, the counsel for the Foreigners Tribunal submitted that Hachinur is currently lodged at the Kokrajhar Holding Centre, located at the 7th Assam Police Battalion complex in Charaikhola. This was the first official confirmation of his whereabouts, nearly two weeks after he had been picked up.

Given the serious apprehensions of unlawful deportation expressed in the petition — especially in light of recent alleged “pushback” cases across the Indo-Bangladesh border — the Court issued the following interim directions:

No deportation of Hachinur shall be carried out without express orders of the Court;

The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Border), Kamrup (Metro) shall be informed of this order via email or WhatsApp by the FT standing counsel;

A copy of the order must also be forwarded to the Kokrajhar Holding Centre, and proof of such communication shall be placed before the Court on the next date;

The matter is next listed for June 11, 2025, when the State is expected to file its response, and the Court will consider further directions, including on the issue of bail.

The case has highlighted not only procedural irregularities in the manner of detention but also a lack of transparency in the custodial transfer of declared foreigners, even when they are under judicially approved bail protection.

The complete order may be read below.

Conclusion: A worrying pattern of secret detentions, procedural evasion, and statelessness risks in Assam

The five above-mentioned habeas corpus cases brought before the Gauhati High Court between June 4 and June 9, 2025, taken together, reveal more than isolated procedural lapses — they reflect a systemic pattern of disregard for constitutional safeguards, legal process, and transparency in Assam’s handling of individuals declared as “foreigners” under the Foreigners Act.

In each of these cases — whether it was Abdul Sheikh, Majibur Rehman, Doyjan Bibi, Samsul Ali, or Hachinur @ Hasinur — the individuals were:

Declared foreigners years ago by Foreigner Tribunals, often on ex parte or minimally reasoned orders;

Released from long-term detention under Supreme Court-mandated bail conditions during the COVID-19 period;

Complying regularly with all reporting obligations, including weekly appearances at police stations;

Then suddenly picked up between May 24–25, 2025, without arrest memos, warrants, or production before a magistrate;

With no information provided to families for days or weeks, forcing them to approach the High Court for basic disclosure;

And in at least one case (Samsul Ali), possibly deported without any official record of nationality verification or BSF handover protocol.

The Court, to its credit, has taken some necessary remedial steps: ordering disclosure of detainees’ locations, granting visitation rights, requiring vakalatnamas, staying deportation in one case, and demanding that missing procedural records (such as BSF handover documents) be produced. But the underlying pattern remains deeply concerning.

These are not instances of absconding or violation of bail — in fact, all five individuals were in regular contact with police authorities up to the week of their detention. Their sudden re-arrest — without formal notice, and in some cases without revocation of their bail — suggests a shadow system of policing that bypasses the courts, leaves families uninformed, and raises serious questions about executive overreach in matters of citizenship and detention.

What’s more, most of these Foreigners Tribunal opinions failed to establish even a prima facie case of alternative nationality. In several cases, the individuals were never shown to have crossed a border or held documents of any other country. Yet, the assumption of “foreignness” — once declared — now operates with a finality and force that can lead to detention, disappearance, and possible expulsion — even years later, and even after bail has been granted.

These cases expose a deeply troubling legal vacuum:

• The Foreigners Tribunals continue to deliver life-altering orders without establishing key facts — such as where the individual is allegedly from.
• Police and border authorities act without judicial oversight — detaining individuals with no fresh order, often in complete secrecy.
• Families are denied access, both physically and legally, until they invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court.
• And in the background looms the risk of statelessness — where a person is stripped of recognition in India, but not acknowledged as a citizen by any other country.

In a constitutional democracy, the deprivation of liberty must be backed by law, transparency, and due process. The five cases heard this week suggest those principles are being routinely bypassed in Assam’s implementation of the Foreigners Act.

As the matters come up again between June 10 and June 20, the Court has an opportunity not only to remedy individual violations, but to ask the larger question: Can a person be deprived of their freedom — and potentially their country — without judicial scrutiny, without nationality verification, and without a legal process the public can see and challenge?

So far, the answer has been far from clear.

Related:

Gauhati High Court directs Assam Government to disclose whereabouts of two men secretly detained by the police in May

CJP Exclusive from Assam: Six Indian women, six torturous nights, and the ordeal of being dubbed “Bangladeshi” by the State

“Disappeared in the night”: CJP’s memorandum to NHRC on Assam’s secretive detentions and illegal pushbacks

CJP Exclusive: Homeland to No Man’s Land! Assam police’s unlawful crackdown on residents still battling for restoration of citizenship rights?

The post Petitions multiply in Gauhati High Court as “Declared Foreigners” out on bail go missing; 4 out of 5 reported to be in holding centre, 1 “handed over” to BSF appeared first on SabrangIndia.

These events, including the rather brazen assertion by Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma of a “push-back” policy for undocumented immigrants from Bangladesh and Myanmar (including Rohingyas), have brought the issue of deportation and refugee rights into sharp focus. A report by the Indian Express stated that approximately 2,000 individuals have been forcibly returned under “Operation Sindhoor.” People from states like Gujarat, Rajasthan and Maharashtra have been reportedly detained and taken to Bangladesh border.

A top officer of the Bangladesh Army has termed the forcible expulsion or so called “push-back” policy unacceptable. A woman—Shona Bhanu— was pushed into Bangladesh at gun point. She has lived in Assam all her life.

As in all matters related to citizenship, Assam and its people, especially the marginalised, have faced the brunt. Citizens for Justice and Peace (cjp.org,in)  with its vibrant on ground team in the state, has been closely involved in not just monitoring and documenting this humanitarian tragedy but also intervened with para legal aid, counselling and actual legal interventions. See here and here. Comprehensive memorandums to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) may be read here and here.

Much of the recent action (s) of the authorities, in states ruled, interestingly by the far right Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), have been experienced as executive overreach, with no public disclosures on procedures and documents to legally and constitutionally justify the process. Sudden demolitions of entire bastis, the forcible detention of families, backed by over-hyped and exaggerated statements on purging the country of illegal immigrants have even put the judiciary on the defensive. That these actions have been launched in a coordinated manner after the Pahalgam terror attack (April 22) and the military face-off between India-Pakistan (May 7-10, 2025), squarely plays into public sentiment that remains silent or “allows” such unlawful actions.

Given that India remains a constitutional republic, bound to a process of law, procedure and even international obligations, it is crucial to ask, what is the law and procedure, on ‘deportation’ and how important it is that this be rendered in the public consciousness and meticulously followed?

In this extensive legal resource (in two parts) CJP’s legal team examines this sticklish question.

A common, yet simplistic, view is that individuals who are not Indian citizens and have entered India illegally should be sent back. This perspective often overlooks the complex legal and humanitarian dimensions involved. This document aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the legal framework governing deportation in India. It will explore:

1. The rights of refugees and illegal migrants under the Indian Constitution.
2. How various court judgments have upheld these fundamental rights, including the right to due process, thereby shaping the law of the land?

This analysis will primarily focus on the legal aspects, with a subsequent part that deals with the broader societal and humanitarian considerations for treating refugees with not just greater compassion but adherence to constitutional jurisprudence and international obligations.

1. Legal Regime—Immigration and deportation in India

The management of immigration and the deportation of foreign nationals is a complex and often contentious domain within Indian law and policy. The “push-back” strategy, characterised by the forcible return of individuals without adherence to established legal procedures, starkly contrasts with the human rights guarantees enshrined in the Indian Constitution and affirmed by its judiciary. The recent enactment of The Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 (hereinafter “the 2025 Act”), which consolidates and replaces previous legislation, further shapes this landscape, necessitating a thorough examination of its provisions and implications.

2.1.          The legislative framework (Foreigners Act, 1946—Pre-2025 Act)

Prior to the 2025 Act, the deportation process in India was primarily governed by the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964.

• Definition of a “Foreigner”: Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, defined a “foreigner” as a person who is not a citizen of India.
• Foreigners Tribunals: Established under the 1964 Order, these tribunals were empowered to determine if an individual was a foreigner.
• Expulsion: Once declared a foreigner, an individual was liable for expulsion from Indian territory under Section 3(2)(c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
• Saving Provision: The Foreigners Act, 1946 was repealed by the 2025 Act, but a saving provision ensured that rules made under the 1946 Act continue to be valid.

2.2.          Role of the Citizenship Act, 1955, and Special Provisions (Assam-Specific)

The Citizenship Act, 1955, contains crucial provisions, particularly relevant in the context of Assam:

• Section 6A (Assam Accord): This section provides special provisions for persons of Indian origin who entered Assam between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971. If declared foreigners, they may still be permitted to register for citizenship after a 10-year waiting period from the date of detection. During this period, they cannot vote but enjoy other citizenship rights. Entrants post-March 25, 1971, if found to be foreigners, are liable for expulsion.
• Section 9 (Burden of Proof): This section places the burden of proving Indian citizenship on the individual when questioned by authorities, rather than the state having to prove they are not a citizen.
• Referral to Tribunals (Assam): For individuals in Assam or those covered under special notifications, cases with inadequate documentation or unclear citizenship are referred to Foreigners Tribunals. This is mandated by the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003, and Paragraph 2 of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964.

2.3.       The Passports Act, 1967

The Passports Act, 1967, while not directly providing for deportation, plays a significant role in the identification and apprehension of individuals liable for deportation:

• Powers of Passport Authorities (Sections 6 & 10): Authorities can refuse, impound, or revoke passports if the applicant is not an Indian citizen, or if issuance is contrary to public interest, national security, or foreign relations.
• Penalties (Section 12): Prescribes penalties for obtaining or using passports through false information or by foreigners masquerading as Indian citizens.
• Arrest Powers (Sections 13 & 14): Law enforcement can arrest individuals with fraudulent passports or without valid documentation, often a preliminary step towards deportation.
• Complementary Legislation: The Passports Act, 1967, operates alongside the Foreigners Act, 1946 (now repealed), and the Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939(also repealed by the 2025 Act).

Foreigners staying illegally in India risk violating provisions of both the (now-repealed) Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Passports Act, 1967, potentially leading to imprisonment of up to 5 years. The question of what happens after such a foreigner is released from jail often involves arbitrary administrative discretion.

2.4.         Procedure for deportation

Deportation in India, though grounded in statutory powers, was largely operationalised through internal administrative mechanisms and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) by state authorities (See here, here and here) following directions from the Centre.

Typical deportation process:

• Identification/Completion of Sentence: A foreign national is declared a foreigner or completes a prison term for violating applicable laws.
• Notification: Jail authorities notify relevant police officials (e.g., Superintendent of Police) about the impending release.
• Custody and Order:
  • If the government decides on deportation, a formal order is issued.
  • Upon release, the individual is taken into police custody and served with the deportation order.
• Physical Removal: Arrangements are made for their removal from the country, often under police escort. The serving officer reports the execution of the order back to the government.
• Consular notification (Vienna Convention):
  • As per Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Indian authorities must inform the consular representatives of the foreign national’s country about their arrest or detention.
  • Indian practice (MEA Office Memorandum No. T.4415/1/91 (CPO/CIR/9)) requires:
    • Asking the arrested foreign national if they wish their consulate to be informed.
    • Immediately notifying the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).
    • Providing detailed particulars (name, nationality, passport details, offence, arrest details, location) to Joint Secretaries at MEA and MHA, and state authorities.
    • Deportation for minor violations: In cases of brief overstays or delayed registration, prosecution might be withdrawn with court approval, and the individual directly deported under delegated powers of Section 3(2)(c) of the (now-repealed) Foreigners Act. A record is submitted to the MEA.

2.5.          The Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025: A New Consolidated Regime

The Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, received Presidential assent. It aims to consolidate and modernise India’s immigration laws by repealing four key statutes:

1. The Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920
2. The Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939
3. The Foreigners Act, 1946
4. The Immigration (Carriers’ Liability) Act, 2000

2.5.1.     Key Provisions of the 2025 Act

• Definition of “Foreigner” (Section 2(f)): A person who is not a citizen of India (consistent with the 1946 Act).
• Entry, Exit, and Registration:
  • Section 3: Mandates valid passports/travel documents for all entering/exiting India. Foreigners additionally require a valid visa, unless exempted.
  • Section 6: Requires foreigners to register with a designated Registration Officer upon arrival, subject to prescribed conditions.
  • Section 5: Provides for notification of designated immigration posts and establishes a Bureau of Immigration.
• Powers of Immigration Authorities:
  • Section 3: Immigration Officers can examine travel documents/visas and deny entry on grounds specified by the Central Government (national security, sovereignty, public order, public health, foreign relations).
  • Section 26: Police officers (not below Head Constable rank) can arrest without a warrant individuals suspected of contravening entry requirements or other Act provisions.

• Powers of the Central Government:
  • Section 7: Empowers the Central Government to issue orders/instructions to prohibit, regulate, or restrict entry, departure, or continued presence of any foreigner or class of foreigners. This can include directives on residence, movement restrictions, proof of identity, and reporting presence.

• Tracking and Monitoring:
  • Sections 10, 12, and 17: Impose reporting obligations on carriers, accommodation providers (hotels, etc.), educational institutions, and medical institutions treating foreign patients to furnish prescribed information to registration authorities.

• Penalties:
  • Section 18: Carriers liable for fines up to ₹50,000 for contravening Section 17. If a carrier brings an illegal foreigner, the fine can be ₹2-5 lakhs.
  • Section 21: Entering India without a valid passport/visa can attract imprisonment up to five years and a fine up to ₹500,000.
  • Section 22: Using forged documents can lead to imprisonment for two to seven years and fines from ₹100,000 to ₹1,000,000.
  • Section 23: Overstaying, violating visa conditions, or trespassing in restricted areas can result in imprisonment up to three years and a fine up to ₹300,000.

• Mechanisms for Identification, Detention, and Deportation:
  • Section 29: Authorizes the Central Government to order the removal of any foreigner from India if they have contravened the Act/orders or if there is an “adverse security report” against them. “Adverse security report” is not defined in the Act.
  • Government officers are granted reasonable powers to enforce removal.
  • Foreigners may be required to bear the cost of their removal and maintenance pending removal.
  • The Act does not detail pre-deportation detention facilities or conditions, suggesting these could be in rules framed under the Act meaning that they are left to executive discretion.
  • The term “illegal immigrant” is not explicitly defined, though actions constituting illegal entry/stay are penalised.

(Note: “illegal migrant” is defined in Section 2(1)(b) of The Citizenship Act, 1955 as a person entering the Country without valid documents or overstaying permitted time in country despite having entered with valid documents).

2.5.2.     Concerns Regarding the 2025 Act

While presented as a modernising step, the 2025 Act appears to consolidate and potentially amplify executive dominance:

• Vague grounds for removal (Section 29): The term “adverse security report” is undefined, allowing for potentially unfettered discretion without a clear, independent review mechanism within the Act.
• Absence of adequate appellate mechanism: No statutory appellate mechanism within the Act to challenge deportation orders, forcing individuals to approach constitutional courts.
• Silence on refugees/asylum seekers: The Act lacks explicit classifications or special provisions for refugees and asylum seekers.
• Expansive power of removal and use of force:
  • Section 29: Grants broad power for removal.
  • Section 27 (Use of Force):

• Subsection (1): Allows any authority to take steps and use force “as may, in its opinion, be reasonably necessary” for compliance or effective exercise of power.
• Subsection (2): Extends similar powers to police (Head Constable and above) to use force “as may, in his opinion, be reasonably necessary.” The subjective nature of “reasonably necessary” provides wide latitude.
• Subsection (3): Grants a “right of access to any land or other property whatsoever,” potentially facilitating removals.
• These provisions could legitimize forcible “push-back” operations with limited procedural review.

• Delegation and immunity:
  • Section 28 (Delegation of Powers): Allows the Central Government to delegate its powers widely (to subordinate officers/authorities, State Governments, or their subordinates). This could lead to decentralized and less scrutinized implementation of removal directives, including “push-backs.”
  • Section 32 (Protection of action taken in good faith): Protects individuals from legal proceedings for actions “done, or intended to be done in good faith” under the Act. In the context of vague terms and broad force powers, this may shield authorities in “push-back” operations.

• Rule-making power and continuity of previous regime:
  • Section 30 (Power to make rules): Grants extensive rule-making power to the Central Government. Significant aspects of the deportation process (detention, removal specifics, and safeguards) will be determined by executive rule-making rather than direct legislative scrutiny.

Overall Concern: The 2025 Act solidifies executive dominance. Vague removal grounds, sanctioned use of force based on officer opinion, wide delegation, and protective clauses create a framework where policies like “push-back” can be implemented with a veneer of legality. The Act’s silence on specific protections for refugees means these broad powers can apply to vulnerable individuals without distinction, potentially lacking robust procedural safeguards and independent oversight.

2.6.          The “Push-Back” Policy: Assam’s approach to undocumented citizens/immigration

Against this new legal backdrop, the Assam Chief Minister has publicly announced the state’s adoption of a “push-back” policy for undocumented immigrants, primarily targeting individuals from Bangladesh and Myanmar (including Rohingyas). This policy is framed as an expedient alternative to established legal deportation procedures, citing national security.

• Reported Incidents: Forcible return of Bengali-speaking Muslims and Rohingyas, sometimes from detention centres, with individuals allegedly stranded at the “zero line” if refused entry by neighbouring countries.

• Alignment with MHA Directives: This state-level policy appears to resonate with Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) directives aimed at expediting deportation. The MHA has instructed states to:

• Verify credentials of suspected illegal immigrants within a 30-day deadline, failing which deportation is to proceed.
• Establish special district-level task forces for detection, identification, and deportation.
• Risks of MHA’s 30-Day Deadline: High risk of wrongful deportations, as nationality verification is often complex and cannot realistically be completed in such a short timeframe, especially for vulnerable individuals. This could lead to violations of the principle of non-refoulement if asylum seekers are erroneously deported.

• Legal Ambiguity: The “push-back” policy operates in a legally ambiguous, if not outright unlawful, space. It flouts the procedural protections required by the Constitution and affirmed by the Courts. What are these protections?

3.       The Judicial Bulwark – Constitutional Rights and Deportation Jurisprudence

While legislation grants the state powers to regulate foreigners, the Indian judiciary has consistently intervened to ensure these powers are exercised in conformity with constitutional principles.

3.1.          Constitutional Protections for Non-Citizens

The Constitution of India extends certain fundamental rights to all persons within its territory, not just citizens.

• Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty): “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
  • The Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India established that “life” means the right to live with human dignity, and “personal liberty” has been broadly interpreted.
  • Critically, the “procedure established by law” must be just, fair, and reasonable. This is fundamental to any deportation process.

• Article 14 (Equality before the Law): “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”
  • This acts as a bulwark against arbitrary state action. Any differential treatment for deportation must be based on an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the objective.

Policies like “push-backs,” which bypass due process, are prima facie incompatible with Article 21. If such policies disproportionately target specific ethnic or national groups without a non-discriminatory legal basis, they could also be challenged under Article 14.

3.2.          Judgements on Deportation and Rights of Foreigners

A nuanced judicial landscape has emerged regarding the treatment of foreign nationals.

3.2.1.     Right to Life and Liberty (Article 21)

The Supreme Court in Louis De Raedt & Ors vs Union Of India And Ors, 1991 (3) SCC 554 firmly stated that a foreigner’s fundamental right is confined to Article 21 for life and liberty. It “does not include the right to reside and settle in this country, as mentioned in Article 19(1) (e), which is applicable only to the citizens of this country.”

3.2.2.     State’s Power to Expel

The Supreme Court, in Louis De Raedt, referencing an earlier Constitution Bench decision, held that “the power of the Government in India to expel foreigners is absolute and unlimited and there is no provision in the Constitution fettering this discretion.” This power is typically exercised under the Foreigners Act, 1946 (now the 2025 Act).

3.2.3.     Principle of Non-Refoulement

This international law principle prohibits a state from returning a refugee to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened.

Although India is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, courts have drawn inspiration from international instruments like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (to which India is a party) to interpret domestic fundamental rights.

In Ktaer Abbas Habib Al Qutaifi And Anr. vs Union Of India  (Gujarat High Court),  (1998) SCC OnLine Guj 304, concerning Iraqi refugees, the Court declared that the principle of non-refoulement “is encompassed in Article 21 of the Constitution, so long as the presence of refugee is not prejudicial to the law and order and security of India.” It noted India’s UN membership and Article 51(c) of the Constitution (fostering respect for international law). The Court directed authorities to release the detained foreigners and decide on their handover to the UNHCR rather than deporting them to Iraq.

In Nandita Haksar v State of Manipur (Manipur High Court), (2021) SCC OnLine Mani 176,
dealing with Myanmarese asylum seekers, the Court held that Article 21 “would indubitably encompass the right of non-refoulement, albeit subject to the condition that the presence of such asylum seeker or refugee is not prejudicial or adverse to the security of this country.” It distinguished ‘migrants’ from ‘asylum seekers’ who fled imminent threats and directed facilitation of their travel to the UNHCR in New Delhi.

In a recent case being heard by the Bombay High Court, a vacation bench of justices Neela Gokhale and Firdosh P Pooniwalla ordered the Mumbai police to release immediate an 18-year old daughter of a Bangladeshi national from detention. Her father, reportedly a Bangladeshi national was initially detained by the Mankhurd police in Mumbai ‘for an inquiry regarding his citizenship and was later deported to the neighbouring country.The court was hearing a petition filed by the 18-year-old girl and her two younger siblings aged 16 and 8 years, who contended that they were born in India and had all requisite documents to prove their Indian citizenship. According to their petition, their father, Dadamiya Khan, had been residing in India for over 37 years. He had married an Indian woman named Mariyam Khan and was working as a cab driver. While all three children were detained by Mankhurd police following a special drive to identify foreign nationals staying illegally in India, the two younger siblings were handed over to their mother after they filed the Habeas Corpus petition.

3.2.4.     Supreme Court on Rohingya Deportation

In Mohammad Salimullah vs Union Of India, (2021) 19 SCC 191, the Supreme Court, while acknowledging Articles 14 and 21 are available to non-citizens, denied interim relief against deportation for Rohingya refugees. It cited “threat to internal security of the country” and “agents and touts providing a safe passage into India for illegal immigrants.” However, even in this context, the Court stipulated that deportation must follow the “procedure prescribed for such deportation.”

3.2.5.     Natural Justice and Right to be Heard

Louis De Raedt: The Supreme Court noted that while there’s no hard and fast rule, an opportunity to present one’s case is relevant.

In State Of Arunachal Pradesh vs Khudiram Chakma, 1994 (1) SCC (SUPP) 615, involving the proposed shifting of Chakmas, multiple notices and representations over time were deemed sufficient opportunity for a hearing. Interestingly, despite upholding state power, the Court allowed the Chief Minister to afford a post-decisional hearing on humanitarian grounds.

3.2.6.     State’s Duty to Protect

In National Human Rights Commission vs State Of Arunachal Pradesh & Anr, (1996) 1 SCC 742, the Supreme Court directed the state government to protect the life and liberty of Chakma refugees facing threats and ‘quit notices’ from organised groups. This affirmed the state’s constitutional and statutory obligation to safeguard all human beings, citizens or otherwise.

3.2.7.     Judicial Essence

While the Indian judiciary acknowledges the executive’s broad power to regulate foreigners and deport illegal entrants, it has consistently emphasized that any such deportation must follow the prescribed procedure, aligning with the principles of natural justice and constitutional safeguards under Article 21.

4.       Conclusion

In the case of Maja Daruwala v. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court passed an order on January 30, 2025, and posed some questions to respondents (Centre and West Bengal) regarding what their stance was on deportation of illegal migrants. The Court expressed a confusion and said as follows:

“The pivotal issue that falls for our consideration is that if an illegal immigrant from Bangladesh after being apprehended and proceeded under Section 14A(b) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 is convicted and sentenced to undergo a particular term of imprisonment then after he completes his term of sentence should be immediately repatriated/deported to his own country or should he be kept for an indefinite period in the Correctional Homes in India.

The only confusion in our mind is that once an illegal immigrant is put to trial and is held guilty then what is the requirement for further verification of his nationality at the end of the Ministry of External Affairs.”

On May 16, 2025, the two-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan transferred the issues in this case to be heard along with another case— Jaffar Ullah & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors—dealt by a larger bench.

The latest order—in Jaffar Ullah— was the Supreme Court refusing to interfere in deportation until it finally hears the case which it is set to hear on July 31, 2025. This was done after the Union drew the Court’s attention to the Mohammad Salimullah order which mandated that government follow the procedure before deportation.

One clear conclusion from the above happening is that a specific well thought out law on deportation does not exist. All we have are some memorandums and executive decided processes. The Supreme Court’s expression of confusion is a testament to that.

This means that the current policy being followed, involving pushback, does not take into account things like lack of documentation etc. especially in poor Bengali speaking communities. And in the absence of a set law, the pushbacks reported are happening in a legally dubious manner putting vulnerable people including those that fled persecution at risk.

In essence, while the legislative framework, particularly the new 2025 Act, appears to strengthen the executive’s hand in managing immigration and effecting deportations, this power is not unfettered. It is limited by constitutional safeguards and a body of judicial precedent that insists on procedural fairness, non-arbitrariness, and respect for human dignity. The ongoing challenge lies in ensuring that administrative practices and the implementation of laws like The Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, rigorously adhere to these judicially reinforced standards.

Whether the Supreme Court will herald a new era in human rights law by mandating better procedures for deportation or not is a question that will be answered after July 31. The second part of this explainer will explore the broader humanitarian and societal arguments for why refugees should be treated with greater compassion and why upholding such principles is vital for India as a civilization.

(The author is part of the legal research team of the organisation)

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

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 Does India have a lawfully established procedure on ‘deportation’, or are actions governed by Executive secrecy and overreach? appeared first on SabrangIndia.