On July 25, The Hindu reported that Human Rights Watch had documented expulsions being carried out without any verification of citizenship. Bangladesh’s own border guards confirmed that more than 1,500 people had been pushed out in just five weeks. The report of Deutsche Welle amplified these findings with testimonies of workers whose Aadhaar cards were torn up, who were beaten, and then forced across the border at gunpoint.

Article 14 described the atmosphere in Ahmedabad’s Chandola area, where residents say their neighbours vanish overnight. As one woman put it: “They’re taken, and we don’t even get to see them again.”

The Courts: Cautious but engaged

For weeks, the deportations took place largely outside the gaze of the judiciary. That shifted in August.

On August 14, LiveLaw reported that the Supreme Court had issued notice to the Union government and nine states on a petition filed by the West Bengal Migrant Workers’ Welfare Board. The Board alleged that under a May directive of the Ministry of Home Affairs, arbitrary deportations were being carried out by multiple state police forces, targeting Bengali-speaking workers.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi pressed the Centre to respond. While the Solicitor General denied any targeting based on language, the Court reminded him that “action cannot be on the basis of language.” The bench stopped short of granting interim relief, but hinted at the need for a central coordination mechanism.

Meanwhile, the Calcutta High Court has taken a more pointed approach. On July 17, Scroll reported that the Court had sought answers about the case of Sunali Bibi, allegedly deported from Delhi while eight months pregnant. The petition was filed by her family, who say she was detained in Delhi despite showing Aadhaar and other documents.

According to the report of Madhyamam, it was revealed that the Delhi FRRO had issued an order on June 24 and executed it two days later. Delhi Police maintained that due process was followed. The Calcutta High Court, however, has asked the Union to explain why deportations suddenly escalated in June. The case is listed for hearing on August 20.

States push ahead

Even as courts are probing these deportations, state governments are moving aggressively.

• Maharashtra: On August 8, the Indian Express reported that Mumbai Police deported 112 people in a single operation using an Indian Air Force aircraft to the Assam–Bangladesh border. This brought the 2025 tally in Mumbai to 719 deportations — a staggering jump from 152 in all of 2024. Officials said they relied on call records, bank transactions, and site visits to identify foreigners. But the same report showed troubling patterns: entire families being targeted, and mothers with minor children deported without clarity about the children’s citizenship.
• Tamil Nadu: On August 12, the New Indian Express reported that the Attur district jail in Salem has been designated as a special camp for nearly 200 Bangladeshi nationals awaiting deportation. With existing camps overcrowded, Tamil Nadu’s move reflects how states are formalising and expanding detention infrastructure for cross-border removals.
• West Bengal: By contrast, West Bengal is resisting. On June 17, The Telegraph reported that three of five workers who had been pushed into Bangladesh were repatriated after the state government pressed the BSF to raise the matter with its Bangladeshi counterparts. Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has publicly accused BJP-ruled states of using deportations to harass Bengali-speaking Indians. On July 19, The Hindu reported her charge that this is part of a political campaign. That same day, The Hindu carried the testimony of Sweety Bibi, who said she and her family were picked up in Delhi’s Rohini area and deported despite holding Aadhaar cards.

Anatomy of a “push-out”

What distinguishes these deportations is their method. Reports by Citizens for Justice and Peace have previously detailed how people are detained in distant cities, transported under guard to Assam, and then forced across informal stretches of the border by the BSF — sometimes through river channels. There are no FIRs, no magistrates, and no tribunal hearings. Families are often not informed, and the individuals vanish from Indian legal records.

As The Indian Express explained, the Foreigners Act, 1946, places the burden on individuals to prove citizenship, but it still mandates a legal process — notice, inquiry, and tribunal adjudication. Many have argued that skipping these steps transforms deportations into unlawful expulsions.

The human cost

Behind the legal arguments are human tragedies. Deutsche Welle carried accounts of men in Mumbai who were beaten, stripped of their IDs, and loaded onto buses for Assam. In Delhi, the case of Sunali Bibi raises urgent questions about the rights of her unborn child if she gives birth in Bangladesh.

In Ahmedabad, Article 14 reported that residents of Chandola — branded as “Bangladeshis” after a demolition drive — have been cut off from rentals, water supply, and even schools for their children. Fear of deportation now pervades everyday life.

The emotional fallout can be as devastating as the legal consequences. In a deeply tragic case documented by India Today, The Indian Express, NDTV, and The Telegraph, a 63-year-old Kolkata man named Dilip Kumar Saha—who had lived in the city since 1972 after migrating from Dhaka—died by suicide amid intense fear over being targeted by the proposed NRC. His family said that even though he possessed valid voter ID and other documentation, he was increasingly anxious about the possibility of being detained or “pushed out” to Bangladesh. No explicit mention of NRC appeared in his note, but his wife and local politicians blamed the atmosphere of uncertainty for driving him to depression

The bottom line

India is in the middle of a deportation surge unlike anything seen in decades. State governments like Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu are expanding infrastructure and accelerating deportations; West Bengal is contesting them and even securing the return of deported workers. The Supreme Court and High Courts are beginning to engage but have yet to halt the practice.

As documented across multiple media reports as well as the ground reports of CJP, what unites these cases is a disturbing absence of due process. Citizens and migrants alike are being swept up, disappeared across the border, and left to fight for recognition.

The months ahead will show whether India’s judiciary reasserts constitutional safeguards — or whether the “push-out” becomes an entrenched, silent feature of governance at the border.

Related:

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

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

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

“She Can’t Just Disappear”: Gauhati High Court told as state fails to produce handover certificate in Doyjan Bibi “pushback” case

The post India’s Silent Push-Out: Courts, states, and the deportation of Bengali-Speaking Muslims appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Judicial Firewall: Calcutta High Court sounds the Constitutional alarm

On July 17, 2025, the Calcutta High Court issued a pointed rebuke to the Union government and state authorities over the sudden and widespread raids conducted in June to identify so-called “illegal Bangladeshis.” As per the report of Times of India, a division bench of Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Reetobroto Kumar Mitra posed blunt questions: “What were the reasons for these sudden nationwide raids? Were they pre-planned? On what intelligence were they based?” The Court, hearing habeas corpus petitions concerning the alleged illegal detention and deportation of Bengali-speaking migrants, including a family of three from Birbhum allegedly pushed into Bangladesh, emphasised that such actions, if based solely on language or appearance, risk sending a “wrong and dangerous message.”

The Court directed the West Bengal government, the Delhi Police, and the Union government to file detailed affidavits regarding the legality of the detentions and deportations. As per the report of LiveLaw, State counsel Kalyan Bandopadhyay submitted that it was outrageous to detain or deport any individual solely because they spoke Bengali. “The constable is not the competent authority. You cannot criminalize language. There is a procedure, a legal standard, that must be met to question someone’s citizenship,” he said, demanding data on the number of detainees and those deported.

In response, senior Union government counsel Asoke Kumar Chakraborty questioned whether habeas corpus petitions were maintainable after deportation, revealing that a parallel case had been filed in the Delhi High Court—information which the Calcutta HC had not been told earlier. The Court came down harshly on the petitioners’ lawyer for this procedural suppression. “This is not expected from a senior advocate. Do not try to play tricks with the court,” Justice Chakraborty warned according to the LiveLaw report. Yet, despite these procedural hiccups, the Court refused to dismiss the matter and insisted on detailed disclosures, recognizing the larger human rights issues at stake.

Odisha: Mass detentions, arbitrary identification, and partial relief

The largest cluster of arrests took place in Odisha, where between June and July 2025, 447 Bengali-speaking migrant workers, most of them masons, daily-wage labourers, or street vendors from districts such as Birbhum, Murshidabad, and South 24 Parganas, were rounded up by police, particularly in Jharsuguda, Khurda, and nearby districts. According to a Scroll report, at least 403 detainees have since been released after sustained legal, political, and administrative pressure—but dozens remain in custody, often on specious grounds.

Multiple detainees testified that police refused to accept Aadhaar, voter ID, or even ration cards as legitimate identification. Instead, they were asked to produce birth and school certificates, often impossible for migrant workers who left their villages as teenagers. Others were detained simply for having Bangladeshi phone numbers saved on their mobile phones, which the police used as an alleged indicator of foreign nationality.

As provided in the TOI report, Ajimuddin Sheikh, 22, from Birbhum, was one such migrant detained during a 1 a.m. police raid near Brajarajnagar. “They seized our phones. Even when we showed voter ID and Aadhaar, they said it was not enough,” he recounted, while speaking to the TOI. His 18-year-old cousin, Nijamuddin Sheikh, added that they were interrogated repeatedly, their phones scanned for Bangladeshi contacts, and only released after producing additional documentation and being vouched for by a local guarantor.

Trinamool MP Samirul Islam, who chairs the West Bengal Migrant Workers Welfare Board, confirmed that most of those detained had been working in Odisha legally for several years. He lambasted the Odisha Police for refusing to accept Indian documents and treating labourers like foreign infiltrators. “There is no law that says a Bengali-speaking labourer cannot work in another Indian state,” he said, as per The Indian Express.

Despite some relief after the High Court sought explanations, Islam and MP Mahua Moitra warned that the mass profiling of Bengali-speaking workers is far from over—and that several youth still remain in custody.

Chhattisgarh: From detention to forced repatriation

In Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, nine Bengali-speaking masons, residents of Krishnanagar in West Bengal, were picked up on July 12 from a school construction site, The Hindu reported. Trinamool MP Mahua Moitra revealed that despite possessing valid documents and being recruited through a verified contractor, the men were detained, denied contact with their families, and allegedly put on buses and sent back to Bengal—without any court order authorizing their removal, reported by TOI.

The Chhattisgarh Police claimed that the men failed to register with local authorities and were detained under preventive sections of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), India’s new criminal procedure code. However, according to IE, Moitra questioned why they were not given access to legal counsel, why their phones were confiscated, and why families were not informed. A habeas corpus petition has now been filed in the Chhattisgarh High Court.

Maharashtra: Matua community targeted, identity cards ignored

In Pune, members of the Matua community, a Dalit religious minority of Bengali origin, were detained by Maharashtra Police on suspicions of being undocumented migrants, according to TOI. Samirul Islam reported that despite furnishing Aadhaar, voter ID, and certificates from the All India Matua Mahasangha, detainees were not released.

Shockingly, even children were among those picked up, and police reportedly refused to recognize documents issued by the AIMM, as per the report. TMC leaders expressed dismay that Santanu Thakur, a BJP MP and Union Minister who himself belongs to the Matua community, remained silent in the face of persecution of his own constituents.

Delhi and Gurugram: Crackdown in the capital

In Delhi, as reported by India Today, the TMC has led a series of protests in Jai Hind Colony, Vasant Kunj, a settlement housing hundreds of Bengali-speaking migrant workers. Despite valid documentation, residents say they have been targeted with evictions, electricity and water cutoffs, and routine harassment by police.

Meanwhile, in Gurugram, at least 26 Bengali-speaking workers from Assam were detained and interrogated over two days. Though eventually released, they alleged that voter ID and Aadhaar cards were rejected and that Muslim workers were disproportionately targeted.

Forced pushbacks and international law violations

Civil rights groups and legal experts have expressed alarm at what appears to be a coordinated “pushback” policy being implemented quietly across multiple states, allegedly under a Union-led directive. According to investigative reports, more than 2,000 persons have been forced across the Indo-Bangladesh border since the initiation of “Operation Sindoor”, which was a military operation ostensibly targeting cross-border terror camps but now being linked to mass civilian expulsions.

These deportations, without legal adjudication, without access to lawyers or courts, and based on profiling, stand in clear violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and India’s obligations under international human rights law, particularly the principle of non-refoulement.

West Bengal Pushes Back: Legal action, street protests, and a linguistic defiance campaign

The West Bengal government, led by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, has mounted one of the strongest political and legal responses yet to the ongoing crackdown on Bengali-speaking migrants across BJP-ruled states. Calling it a “coordinated campaign to erase Bengali identity from the Indian Union,” Banerjee’s administration has launched a multi-pronged resistance: taking the fight to the courts, to Parliament, to civil society, and most strikingly, to the streets.

1. Legal interventions and habeas petitions

West Bengal’s legal machinery was among the first to intervene after news broke in late May and June that Indian citizens, including women and minors, had allegedly been pushed across the Indo-Bangladesh border by Assam and Maharashtra Police.

According to The Telegraph, Maktoob, and Indian Express, the State of West Bengal has taken a proactive legal and administrative stance in ongoing cases concerning the wrongful detention and deportation of Bengali-speaking migrants. It has challenged detentions and deportations carried out without Foreigners Tribunal orders or judicial oversight, particularly in cases where individuals possessed valid Indian documents. The Calcutta High Court has repeatedly flagged these incidents as potentially illegal and directed the State to respond. In compliance, the West Bengal government has dispatched state police and administrative teams to states such as Odisha and Maharashtra to trace missing persons, facilitate their release, and assist with documentation, including the recording of victim testimonies. The State has also filed multiple status reports before the Calcutta High Court, detailing repatriation efforts and procedural violations. Acting on judicial direction, the Chief Secretary has appointed a nodal officer to liaise with the governments of other states and the Union Ministry of Home Affairs to ensure coordinated response mechanisms and prevent further unlawful detentions.

2. Political Leadership: Mamata’s “I will speak more in Bengali” challenge

Mamata Banerjee has not only condemned the raids as unconstitutional but also reframed the issue as a battle for linguistic dignity. On July 16, during a mass rally in central Kolkata, she declared: “I dare you to send me to a detention camp, I will speak more in Bengali,” and “Altogether 1,000 migrant workers have been arrested and detained in BJP-ruled states and many have been pushed back to Bangladesh. People from Birbhum, Cooch Behar, Nadia and other districts are being detained in Odisha and BJP-ruled states,” she said, according to the Economic Times.

Addressing a massive public gathering during the protest march, as reported by Hindustan Times, Mamata Banerjee said, “The BJP calls all Bengali-speaking people Bangladeshi Rohingyas… Rohingyas live in Myanmar. Here, all citizens of West Bengal have proper ID cards and identification. The labourers who have gone outside Bengal have not gone on their own. They have been employed because they have skills… Anyone who speaks Bengali is being arrested and put behind bars. Why? Is West Bengal not a part of India?”

3. Administrative support for victims and families

The West Bengal government has taken several concrete steps to support affected families and challenge interstate detentions:

• Interstate coordination mandated by Court: On direction from the Calcutta High Court, the West Bengal Chief Secretary has appointed a nodal officer to liaise with states like Odisha and Delhi, ensuring the identification and release of Bengali-speaking migrants detained without due process, according to LiveLaw.
• Chief Secretary’s objection to profiling: Chief Secretary Manoj Pant sent a formal letter to the Odisha government objecting to the detention of migrants who had valid Indian documents and condemning demands for ancestral land records as arbitrary and discriminatory, as per Indian Express.
• Verification of migrants across states: Bengal Police has undertaken a large-scale verification drive across multiple states, including Odisha, Maharashtra, and Delhi, covering over 750 cases of suspected wrongful detention. Officials have relied on a mix of local documentation (e.g., ration cards, land deeds, school certificates) to authenticate identity, according to the reports of TOI.
• Interstate legal cell under consideration: According to government officials cited in press briefings, the Home Department may establish a dedicated interstate legal response cell to track migrant-related detentions, deportations, and facilitate legal aid across borders, as provided by New Indian Express.

4. National advocacy

Senior Congress leader Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury submitted a memorandum to President Droupadi Murmu, demanding her intervention in the said situation. In the said memorandum, as reported by IE, the former Congress MP wrote: “It’s very sad and cruel fact that Bengali-speaking daily wage labourers, who are bonafide Indian citizens, are being targeted due to their physical appearance and accent, which is being mistaken for that of Bangladeshis. This similarity is being used as a pretext to harass, humiliate, physically assault, and hold these innocent people in detention.”

Chowdhury emphasised that these labourers are not only Indian citizens, but also contributors to the national economy. “Now, they are being rendered unemployed, homeless, and stateless,” he said, urging the President to step in to protect citizens from communal profiling and unlawful deportations.

Conclusion: Language on trial, citizenship in crisis

The targeting of Bengali-speaking migrants across Indian states has transformed from isolated administrative excesses into a full-blown constitutional crisis. At its core, this moment tests the strength of India’s federal framework, the sanctity of citizenship, and the basic right to dignity regardless of region, religion, or language. When Indian citizens with valid documents are detained, deported, or denied recognition simply for speaking Bengali, it sets a dangerous precedent—not just for Bengalis, but for all linguistic and regional minorities.

The pushback from the Calcutta High Court, the West Bengal government, and sections of civil society has sparked a vital resistance against arbitrary profiling and extra-legal state action. Yet the broader question remains: will the Union government address the growing pattern of exclusionary policies, or allow language and identity to become fault lines for discrimination?

India was envisioned as a pluralistic democracy where diversity is a foundation, not a fault. The events unfolding today demand urgent legal, political, and moral clarity. The road ahead will determine whether that vision endures—or whether silence enables a slow erosion of constitutional protections, starting with those who speak Bengali.

Related:

Gauhati HC closes Bakkar Ali writ petition as missing detainee Samsul Ali is found, not rearrested

‘Define Special Intensive Revision scope… make it clear not linked to citizenship’: BJP ally TDP writes to CEC Gyanesh Kumar

Bengali Migrant Workers Detained in Odisha: Calcutta High Court demands answers, seeks coordination between states

Bengali-Speaking Migrants Detained En Masse in Odisha: National security or targeted persecution?

Bordering on illegality? 18 alleged Bangladeshis “pushed back” without due process, Legal challenge filed in High Court

SC: ECI’s ‘wisdom’ on revision of electoral rolls challenged, does a disenfranchisement crisis loom over Bihar, with thousands being declared ‘‘D’ (doubtful) voters?

The post Under Siege for Speaking Bengali: Detentions, deportations and a rising pushback against the targeting of Bengali migrant workers across India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A bench comprising Justices K.V. Viswanathan and N. Kotiswar Singh issued notice on the Special Leave Petition filed by the detainee, taking note of the prolonged lapse of time since the impugned order dated November 20, 2019. The Court expressed its intent to first ascertain the present status of the petitioner from the Tamil Nadu state authorities before any further steps are taken.

The petitioner, who has been in India for nine years (three in prison and six in the Trichy Special Camp), approached the apex court after the Madras High Court, in December 2024, rejected his plea for permission to visit the Swiss Embassy. According to his counsel, Senior Advocate Jayant Muth Raj, the petitioner fears for his life if deported to Sri Lanka, having lost several family members, including his father, brother, and sister-in-law, in targeted killings during and after the war.

“Don’t deport me… all my family members have been eliminated… I am not a threat to India… If Switzerland is willing to give me a humanitarian visa, I will go there instead of getting killed in Sri Lanka,” Muth Raj submitted on behalf of the petitioner, as per a report in LiveLaw. He also informed the bench that the Swiss Embassy had asked the petitioner to appear in person to complete visa formalities, and that the petitioner was willing to bear the cost of a security escort to facilitate his visit.

The petitioner had earlier faced charges in a human trafficking case, but was acquitted in 2019. Despite this, he continues to remain in administrative detention under the shadow of a deportation order.

When Justice Viswanathan asked why the matter needed to be listed during partial working days, counsel emphasised the urgency of the situation and detailed the brutal executions faced by the petitioner’s family members even after the war had ended. He argued that returning the petitioner to Sri Lanka would amount to a death sentence.

In view of these submissions, and given that the deportation order is over five years old, the Court granted an interim stay on deportation and directed the authorities to respond. The matter will next be heard on August 4, 2025.

“The petitioner challenges an order dated 20.11.2019 directing his deportation. It is nearly six years since the said order is made. Also a prayer is made to permit him to physically appear at Switzerland Embassy to process his Visa application.” (Para 4)

“Considering the fact that the deportation order is about five years and six months old, we would like to ascertain the present status from respondent No.2 – State. In the meantime, the deportation of the petitioner is stayed.” (Para 5)

The June 24 order of the Supreme Court may be read below.

Earlier SC bench refused relief: “India is not a Dharamshala,” Said Justice Datta while rejecting Tamil refugee’s plea

In sharp contrast to the June 24 order passed by the Viswanathan-Kotiswar bench, a different bench of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Dipankar Datta, had in May refused to grant relief to another Sri Lankan Tamil national who had sought protection from deportation after completing his sentence under the UAPA.

During the hearing, which took place on May 19, Justice Datta made strong oral observations, questioning the very premise of allowing such individuals to remain in India:
“Is India to host refugees from all over the world? We are struggling with 140 crore people. This is not a dharamshala that we can entertain foreign nationals from all over.”

According to the report in LiveLaw, the petitioner had argued that he was blacklisted in Sri Lanka due to his alleged association with the LTTE during the 2009 war, and feared arrest, torture or worse if sent back. He also pointed out that he had already served his reduced seven-year sentence and was languishing in detention without any concrete deportation process. His wife and children were residing in India, and his son was suffering from a congenital heart condition.

But the bench, also comprising Justice K. Vinod Chandran, showed no inclination to intervene. Justice Datta questioned the petitioner’s very right to seek protection under Indian constitutional law: “What is your right to settle here?” As per the report in LiveLaw, Justice Datta added that the right to reside or settle in India under Article 19 is available only to Indian citizens and asserted that there was no violation of Article 21 since the petitioner’s liberty had been curtailed following due process of law.

When counsel highlighted the genuine threat to life in Sri Lanka, Justice Datta curtly remarked:
“Go to some other country.”

No interim protection was granted. The Court refused to stay the Madras High Court’s direction that the petitioner must leave India immediately after completing his sentence and remain confined to a refugee camp until his deportation.

This unyielding posture sits uneasily beside the more humanitarian approach taken by the Viswanathan-Kotiswar bench, and exposes the deep inconsistencies in how refugee protection is being adjudicated in India’s highest court. 

The May 19 order of the Supreme Court may be read below.

Related:

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

Gauhati HC seeks report on detained Abdul Sheikh’s weekly police appearances in compliance with bail conditions

J&K High court orders repatriation of 63-year-old woman deported to Pakistan without due process

Gauhati HC Orders Verification of compliance with Bail Conditions in petition filed by Reijya Khatun for detained husband

The post Contradictory Calls: SC halts one Tamil refugee’s deportation, denies another citing ‘not a Dharamshala’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Delhi High Court has asked the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to inform the court of the procedure to be followed to repatriate foreign nationals, who do not have any documentary proof of their native country. The bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh was dealing with a petition filed by 3 Bangladeshi nationals housed in shelter home in Delhi.

The Kamla Market Police Station informed the court that the 3 petitioners were could not provide any documentary proof in their support but they claim to be Bangladesh citizens and also informed that they do not have any criminal antecedents. The police station has also sent a request letter for deportation to Bangladeshi High Commission.

The court took notice of these submissions and directed the MHA to place on record:

(i) The procedure to be adopted in such cases where no documentary evidence exists in respect of the nationality of a foreign national;

(ii) The procedure for repatriation/deportation of such foreign nationals; and

(iii) If such a procedure exists, the time period and formalities to be completed for the same.

The court has directed MHA to file an affidavit in this regard by May 13. The case will next be heard on May 17.

The order may be read here:

Related:

Covid lockdown: Over 150 academicians voice migrant workers’ demands
Manipur: CCM applauds HC order allowing safe passage to Myanmar refugees
We want to serve humanity: Rohingya refugees offer help amidst Covid

The post Delhi HC seeks procedure of deportation of foreign nationals found without documents appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Detained over the weekend, nearly 170 Rohingya refugees face deportation. They were detained by Jammu Police who will reportedly hold them for verification. According to news reports many more Rohingya refugees have now left their camps in Jammu, fearing deportation.

According to a news report in the Indian Express, around 170 Rohingya refugees were detained by Jammu Police on Saturday. These people reportedly did not have “valid documents”. According to  the IE, the police action was carried out while collecting biometric details of the refugees from Myanmar. Hindustan Times quoted Inspector General of Police (Jammu) Mukesh Singh as saying, “These immigrants were not holding valid travel documents required in terms of Section (3) of the Passports Act.” Those detained are now lodged at the Hiranagar sub-jail under Section 3 (2) (e) of the Foreigners Act. According to IGP Singh, “Their nationality verification will be done as per the prescribed norms,” adding that “the process to deport these illegal immigrants will be initiated.” 

According to the IE, around 5,000-6,000 Rohingya have set up camps at various sites on the outskirts of Jammu over the past decade. They have all arrived here citing “extreme persecution” back home in Myanmar, and the latest detetions have “triggered despair and anger.” On Sunday, stated the news report, a large number of Rohingyas marched from Narwal towards Mecca Masjid in the Bhatindi area, accusing police of asking them to step out of their homes again for verification. “If the Indian government tells us to leave, we will return to our native land,” Abu Ahmed, a Rohingya, told The Indian Express, adding, “But there should be no harassment there as we had fled Myanmar due to extreme persecution.”

According to the Hindustan Times, the verification process, which began at MA Stadium in Jammu on Saturday, and those who underwent it reported that the police collected personal information from them. “The officials sought details like my name, parentage, where I lived in Myanmar,” a woman identified Sabina told the HT

Another man, Mohammad Haroon, another Rohingya refugee, was quoted saying, they were all asked to reach MA Stadium with their families, and then “They took our details from the UNHCR [United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees] cards and also conducted Covid tests.”

The Print reported that “hundreds of refugees started leaving the relief camps fearing detention”. Abdul Rohim, who had been staying in a camp since 2014, told ThePrint, “We left the camps and started walking on the highway. We don’t know where to. We have nowhere to go. We can’t go back to our country [Myanmar].” According to the HT, journalists have been denied access to the stadium.   

Distressed #Rohingya refugees in Jammu, #India say they are fleeing from their camps out of fear of being detained and deported.

Earlier yesterday, approximately 155 refugees were detained including children and women. pic.twitter.com/jHi4wLg6sL

— Ro Nay San Lwin (@nslwin) March 7, 2021

As reported by SabrangIndia in January this year, 10 Rohingya migrants including five minors and two women were detained on board the Delhi-bound Rajdhani special train. They had boarded the train from Agartala in Tripura and were deboarded at the next station that is New Jalpaiguri station in West Bengal, where they were arrested and handed over to the Government Railway Police. According to Northeast Frontier Railways (NFR) Chief Public Relations Officer Subhanan Chanda, “The foreign nationals crossed over to India’s Tripura on January 10 from Comilla in Bangladesh and boarded a train from Agartala with the help of an agent. They had come from Kutupalong refugee camp located in Cox’s Bazar in Bangladesh.”  These  arrests came after a few days of the arrest of two refugees identified as Hamid Hussain (23) and Nabi Hussain (22) in New Delhi. They were caught along with a man named Muhammed Umo who claims to be a “refugee coordinator”. These two refugees allegedly entered India from Bangladesh on November 1, 2020, and were working as daily-wage labourers. All the arrested illegal migrants and refugees have been booked under various provisions of the Foreigners Act.

On Sunday March 7, Bharatiya Janata Party’s Jammu and Kashmir unit chief Ravinder Raina was quoted by the IE, saying that the police action was taken following a request from Myanmar’s External Affairs Ministry to deport the Rohingya back for resettlement. According to Raina, “Anyone who has to leave his native land will certainly be happy to return home.”

However, at Kiryani Talab in Narwal on the outskirts of Jammu city, there are family members of those detained who are still waiting. The IE reported a heartbreaking story of four young children who do not know where their parents are. “We cried and fell asleep without having food. I still don’t know where they are or when they will return,’’ says Mohammad-ul-Hassan, 11, who is suddenly “in charge” of his siblings Jaibullah (8), Noor Hassan (7) and Asma Jan (4).

Related:

Illegal Rohingya migrants arrested in Delhi and Tripura
Rohingyas abducted, families attacked in Bengaluru!
Calcutta HC prevents deportation of Rohingya couple, wins hearts

The post What will become of Jammu’s Rohingya refugees? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On December 4, Ronald Sapa Tlau, from Mizoram and belonging to the Congress party directed a question in Rajya Sabha towards the Ministry of Home Affairs. He sought information from the Ministry on number of persons identified as illegal intruders and deported back in the last 4 years. He further asked whether Government has plans to resume soon two failed Indo-Bangladesh dialogues 1992 and 1995 on repatriating Chakmas from Northeast States. To this question, the government responded in the negative.

To the former question, the Ministry gave some data that indicated that up to October 31, West Bengal had the highest number of deportations recorded, at 8,038. Surprisingly, the number of ‘intruders apprehended on Indo-Bangladesh Border handed over to police and deported by Border Security Force’ in Assam since 2015 is only 43. The highest number of deportations to Bangladesh took place in 2015 when 3,426 people were deported from the states of West Bengal, Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram.

The situation that has engulfed Assam in terms of NRC has seen more than 19 lakh people exclude from the final NRC. These people are now running helter-skelter to prove their citizenship before Foreigners Tribunals. In this background, it is surprising that in the past 4 years only 43 people have been deported from Assam, back to Bangladesh.

Related:

Anti-CAB protests intensify in Assam
‘The clock is ticking’: race to save 2 million from statelessness in Assam
Assam simmers over CAB, protests spill over to Manipur too
AAMSU expresses concerns on all India NRC, CAB and clause 6 of Assam Accord
CJP in action in Assam: Reaching remote villages to render counselling and aid
Assam man forced to rot in Detention Camp for over 3 years

The post Deportations to Bangladesh: Only 43 from Assam in last 4 years appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In this August 16, 2017 photo, a Rohingya refugee girl looks through a mesh window at a camp set up for the refugees on the outskirts of Jammu.   | Photo Credit: AP

Yesterday, September 4, at the last hearing in the case, the Centre refuses to give undertaking in SC to stop deportation move against Rohingyas. “I am not making any such statements,” Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta says remaining non-committal to stop the deportation move  The Centre on Monday refused in the Supreme Court to give 40,000 Rohingya Muslim immigrants an assurance that it will not move for their deportation back to Myanmar.
 

Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, remained non-committal on Monday when the two Rohingyas who moved the Supreme Court tried to draw an assurance that the government would not move against their community or take “coercive steps” as the apex court was now in the picture. The matter has now been listed on September 11.
 

Arguing his case, Prashant Bhushan said, “The 40,000 Rohingyas are the world’s most wretched people. They have been persecuted everywhere. Protect them,” Mr. Bhushan, assisted by advocate Pranav Sachdeva.As of now, the court refused to commit to anything. “Let’s see,” Chief Justice Misra said. The petition by the Rohingyas contended that any move to deport them would violate the constitutional guarantee of the Indian State to “protect the life and liberty of every human being, whether citizen or not.”
 

However, the Indian government plans to deport the people living here in various rehabilitation centres. Thankfully beyond all these moral, ethical arguments, lies the legal framework, on which Prashant Bhushan has filed a petition, which might be the only thing that will save the lives of the refugees.
 

The writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeks to secure and protect, the right against deportation, of the petitioner refugees in India, in keeping with the Constitutional guarantees under Article 14 and Article 21, read with Article 51(c) of the Constitution of India against arbitrary deportation of Rohingya refugees who have taken refuge in India after escaping their home country Myanmar due to the widespread discrimination, violence and bloodshed against this community in their home country. The petitioners have been registered and recognised by the UNHCR in India in 2016 and have been granted refugee I-cards. The ‘Non Refoulement’ text, meaning we cannot deport people when they face imminent threat to their lives states:

“No contracting State shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.” A copy of the Convention relation to the Status of Refugees, 1951

Though India is not a signatory of ‘UNHCR’ Refugee treaty, still it is applicable to India, as a part of customary international law, which is binding on India.

The Indian Constitution accords refugees some degree of constitutional protection while they are in India. The following constitutional provisions offer a framework for protecting the rights of refugees: 

● Article 51 (c) of the Indian Constitution, a Directive Principle of State Policy, requires fostering of respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organised peoples with one another.

● Article 14, Right to equality states: “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 article guarantees to refugees in India, the right to equality before law and equal treatment under the law.

● Article 21, Right to life and liberty: “No person shall be deprived of his life of personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”. In according protection to refugees, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has interpreted these constitutional provisions to extend the protection of the right to equality and the right to life and personal liberty of refugees.
 

Cases cited in the plea before the Supreme Court are:

 “That the Supreme Court in its landmark judgement on the right to privacy dated 24th August 2017, in, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) and Anr. v. UOI and Ors WP (C ) No. 494/2012, has categorically stated, “Constitutional provisions must be read and interpreted in a manner which would enhance their conformity with the global human rights regime. India is a responsible member of the international community and the Court must adopt an interpretation which abides by the international commitments made by the country particularly where its constitutional and statutory mandates indicate no deviation.”
 

Another excerpt from the petition:

“That In the National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh (1996) 1 SCC 742, the Supreme Court , states “Our Constitution confers certain rights on every human being and certain other rights on citizens. Every person is entitled to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. So also, no person can be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure

established by law. Thus, the State is bound to protect the life and liberty of every human being, be he a citizen or otherwise”
 

Though India is not a signatory of UNHCR, as Kiren Rijiju has repeatedly stressed, we have a judgement which says the opposite.
 

“The Delhi High Court in Dongh Lian Kham v. Union of India, 226(2016) DLT 208, states, “The principle of “non-refoulement”, which prohibits expulsion of a refugee, who apprehends threat in his native country on account of his race, religion and political opinion, is required to be taken as part of the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as “non-refoulement” affects/protects the life and liberty of a human being, irrespective of his nationality.”
 

The petition prays for the following:

1. An Order directing a stay on Deportations of members of the Rohingya community who are presently in India.
2. Directions to the Govt to ensure that petitioners and other members of the Rohingya community in India, such basic amenities to ensure that they can live in human conditions as required by International law in treatment of refugees.

If India goes ahead with their plan to deport Rohingyas, this would violate India’s commitment to international conventions which recognise the “Principle of Non-Refoulement.” This principle of customary international law prohibits the deportation of refugees to a country where they face threat to their lives.
 

The UNHRC Report of 2016 on the Human Rights violations and abuses against Rohingya Muslims and other minorities in Myanmar has noted successive patterns of serious human rights violations to the right to life, liberty and security of the Rohingyas by state security forces and other officials in Mynamar.
 

Violations include summary executions, enforced disappearance, arbitrary arrest and detention, torture and ill-treatment, forced labour, arbitrary arrest and detention of hundreds of Rohingyas, including women and children.
 

Recently, the National Human Rights Commission had also issued notice to the government on the proposed deportment.Panic struck the refugee community following media reports of a statement by Union Minister of State for Home Affairs Kiren Rijiju in Parliament in early August that the Central government has directed States to identify and deport illegal immigrants, including Rohingyas.
 

At heart, is the communally motivated Ctizenship Amendment Bill, 2016 of the Modi Regime that is currently before a Joint Committee of Parliament. The Modi regime seeks to pass this before the general elections of 2019. This rather perverse amendment., in its current formulation, seeks to exclude undocumented immigrants belonging to certain minority communities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan (all majority-Muslim countries) — Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians—from the category of illegal migrants making them eligible to apply for Indian citizenship. The list of religious minorities, inexplicably, excludes Muslim groups like the Ahmadis, who are also among the most persecuted religious minority in Pakistan. This essentially means that, while non-Muslim migrants become eligible for Indian citizenship, Muslims are denied this right.

Also Read:

How India’s Right-Wing Government Is Trying to Institutionalize Discrimination Against Muslim Migrants: New draft law seeks to privilege the non-Muslim migrant over Muslims.

The post Will India’s SC Stop Rohingyas from Being Deported? appeared first on SabrangIndia.