Delivered within 24 hours of each other on November 4, 2025, these campaign speeches have been described by CJP as “a double assault on India’s constitutional morality and the sanctity of the electoral process.” One, by a sitting Chief Minister, communalises the campaign through religious vilification and genocidal language; the other, by a local candidate, turns political rivalry into a threat of physical mutilation.

The Siwan Rally: Himanta Biswa Sarma’s speech of hate and fear

At an election rally in Raghunathpur, Siwan, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma compared RJD candidate Osama Shahab to global terrorist Osama bin Laden, telling the audience that they must “eliminate all Osama Bin Ladens” from Bihar. Sarma further warned that a victory for Shahab would be “a defeat for Hindus,” promising to watch the results from the Kamakhya temple in Assam and invoking figures like Babur and Aurangzeb to frame the election as a Hindu versus Muslim battle.

His remarks — equating a Muslim candidate with terrorism, describing Muslims as “infiltrators” who threaten women, and boasting of stopping salaries of “mullahs” — were deemed by the complaint to be “state-sponsored demonisation” and “an incitement to exterminatory politics.” Delivered by a Chief Minister under the Model Code of Conduct, they constitute, according to the complaint, “a direct assault on the secular fabric of the Constitution.”

CJP’s complaint lays out an exhaustive legal analysis: violations of Sections 123(2), 123(3), 123(3A), and 125 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and Sections 196, 297, and 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Through the complaint, it has been claimed that Sarma’s speech breaches the Ministerial Code of Conduct, since he holds constitutional office and bears heightened responsibility to maintain neutrality and restraint.

Describing the speech as “hate institutionalised as political strategy,” the complaint also notes that Sarma’s words collapse the constitutional boundary between religion and citizenship — constructing Muslims as infiltrators and enemies of the nation. CJP has demanded the registration of an FIR, Sarma’s debarment from further campaigning, and a public censure from the Election Commission.

The complaint may be read here.

The Kishanganj Rally: Tausif Alam’s threats of violence

On the same day, in Laucha Naya Haat, Kishanganj, AIMIM’s Tausif Alam took the campaign stage to retaliate against RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav, who had earlier called AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi an “extremist.” In a shocking display of aggression, Alam told the crowd: “Tejashwi Yadav called our leader Owaisi an extremist. Tell him — I will cut his eyes, fingers, and tongue if he dares insult Owaisi Sahab again.”

He went further, mocking Tejashwi as the “son of a fodder thief,” an evident reference to his father, Lalu Prasad Yadav.

The complaint describes these remarks as “acts of open intimidation and violent abuse that degrade democratic discourse.” It cites violations of Sections 115, 326, 349, and 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, along with Sections 123(2), 123(4), and 125 of the RPA, 1951, and multiple provisions of the Model Code of Conduct.

The complaint further emphasises that this is not political hyperbole but a “direct threat of grievous bodily harm” designed to intimidate a rival candidate and vitiate the atmosphere of free choice. CJP has called for an FIR against Alam, his temporary debarment from campaigning, and a public censure to reaffirm that threats of violence have no place in electoral politics.

The complaint may be read here.

A Pattern of Electoral Decay: Hate as common ground

Though ideologically opposite, the two speeches share a disturbing symmetry. Both substitute argument with aggression, civic discourse with communal or personal hostility. In Siwan, hate was religiously coded — against Muslims, invoking “infiltrators” and “Osamas.” In Kishanganj, hate was personally targeted — against a rival, invoking mutilation and humiliation.

CJP’s complaints thus expose a broader crisis: the normalisation of hate and violence in electioneering. Both incidents, as highlighted in the complaint, have the potential to trigger communal tension and retaliatory violence in Bihar’s politically sensitive districts. The Election Commission’s inaction, it argues, would erode not just the Model Code of Conduct but the very credibility of free and fair elections.

The complaints legal framing situates these speeches within the broader constitutional architecture of Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, and 25, and the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (2017) and Ziyauddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Mehra (1975), which define religious appeals and hate speech as “corrupt practices” that vitiate elections.

A call for restoring democratic dignity

Together, these complaints articulate an urgent appeal — that India’s electoral arena must not be reduced to a theatre of hate, threat, or intimidation. When political speech turns into a weapon — whether through communal vilification or violent menace — it corrodes the very spirit of democratic civility and constitutional equality. Electoral politics draws its legitimacy from civility, equality, and reasoned dissent — not from the language of fear or vengeance. The complaint reminds the Election Commission and the public alike that elections are not merely contests for power but tests of the Republic’s moral fibre.

Related:

From ‘Tauba Tauba’ to ‘Expel the Ghuspaithiya’: The language of exclusion in Bihar’s election season

BJP leaders’ hate speech draws backlash ahead of Bihar elections

CJP urges YouTube to remove content targeting CJI Gavai from Ajeet Bharti’s channel

The post CJP seeks action against Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma and AIMIM’s Tausif Alam for election code violations in Bihar appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As reported by Hindustan Times, speaking at a women’s empowerment event in Lakhipur, Cachar district, on October 25, the Chief Minister said, “The parents of the male accused in love-jihad cases will also be liable for arrest under the new law. We want to save our women from traps where they become victims of love-jihad and polygamy. We are bringing stringent laws.”

Under the proposed legislation, if a minor girl is lured into an interfaith marriage, both the man and his parents could face multi-year imprisonment. This provision — introducing familial culpability — is unprecedented in any existing anti-conversion law enacted by other states.

According to Times of India, addressing another gathering in Silchar on October 24, Sarma also announced a ban on polygamy, warning that those who “marry more than one woman” would face up to seven years’ imprisonment. “Many men cause immense harm to women by marrying multiple times,” Sarma said, adding that the move sought to “protect the dignity of women and ensure uniformity of law.”

Earlier, on October 22, speaking to reporters in Nagaon, the Chief Minister described the upcoming Assembly session as “historic”, confirming that the government will table several “important and transformative bills” — including those on “love jihad”, polygamy, preservation of Satras (Vaishnavite monasteries), and land rights for tea tribes, as reported by Indian Express. He said that the detailed provisions would be disclosed after Cabinet approval.

Cultural preservation and legislative agenda

Alongside the anti-conversion and polygamy bills, the government will also introduce the Assam Satra Preservation and Development Board Bill, 2025, which was approved by the Cabinet on October 16. The bill aims to protect Vaishnavite monasteries (Satras) — the spiritual and cultural institutions established by the 15th-century saint Srimanta Sankardeva — from alleged encroachment and ensure state-supported preservation, as per LawBeat.

Sarma’s proposed package comes ahead of the 2026 state elections and is seen as part of his government’s broader agenda to “institutionalise” an Assam-centric, almost “majoritarian” cultural and moral order. The Chief Minister has previously said that banning polygamy and “deceitful religious conversions” is part of Assam’s move towards a Uniform Civil Code (UCC)-like framework, echoing the recommendations of the Justice (Retd.) Rumi Kumari Phukan Committee, which examined the legal viability of such a measure.

In recent speeches, Sarma has also linked population control to welfare eligibility, stating, “Some people say that Allah gives them children, so they cannot stop giving birth. I say, give birth as many as you wish, but do not expect government help to raise them or to send them to government schools,” as per Hindustan Times.

The Chief Minister also reacted sharply to comments by activist Medha Patkar, who had criticised the state’s eviction drives and questioned the investigation into singer Zubeen Garg’s death, saying: “Outsiders do not understand the suffering of the indigenous people of Assam. One community is trying to grab our land and take away our sisters through tricks like love-jihad. If Medha Patkar comes here to protest against evictions, we will take strict action.”
(Hindustan Times)

The ‘Love Jihad’ narrative and legal concerns

The term “love jihad” first appeared in 2009 in publications of the Sanatan Prabhat and Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, before being amplified by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP). It gained political traction after 2014, when several BJP-ruled states — including Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, and Haryana — enacted laws criminalizing religious conversions through marriage or deception.

However, Assam’s proposal represents a radical expansion of this framework. By extending culpability to the accused’s parents, it effectively criminalizes familial relationships and transforms allegations of interfaith marriage into matters of collective criminal liability.

Citizens for Justice and Peace, who is also a lead petitioner in challenging the said state anti-conversion laws in the Supreme Court, have warned that such laws are susceptible to misuse, enabling police overreach, community vigilantism, and communal profiling. As The Wire reported, there is no official data to substantiate claims of organized “love jihad” conspiracies, and in several states, arrests under such laws have disproportionately targeted Muslim men in consensual relationships.

The November 25 Assembly session, which Sarma has called “historic,” will be the last major sitting before the 2026 elections. Observers view it as a defining moment that could reshape Assam’s social and legal order — intertwining morality, religion, and state power under the banner of “protecting women” and “preserving indigenous identity.”

If passed, Assam’s “love jihad” and polygamy bills could become among the most far-reaching personal law interventions in independent India, setting a precedent for family liability in interfaith and marital cases, and testing the boundaries between individual freedom, faith, and the expanding reach of the state.

Related:

Gujarat High Court Widened Anti-Conversion Law: ‘Victims’ can be prosecuted as offenders

Supreme Court seeks states’ replies on pleas for stay of anti-conversion laws, to decide on interim stay after six weeks

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

SC issues notice to 5 states in CJP’s renewed challenge to anti-conversion laws

CJP plea against anti-conversion laws: SC seeks to know status of cases challenging ‘anti conversion’ laws in HCs

CJP, other rights groups challenge Maharashtra Govt GR setting up a Committee to “monitor inter-faith marriages”

The post Assam Government to table ‘Love Jihad’ and polygamy bills, CM Sarma says parents of male accused will also face arrest appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Taking to X, CM Sarma wrote “Now playing on illegal infiltrators playlist

Assam Police take me home, to the place I belong..

33 new infiltrators have been PUSHED BACK to where they belong — Bangladesh.

BEWARE: Our stringent efforts continue and will further intensify in the coming days.”

Now playing on illegal infiltrators playlist

Assam Police take me home, to the place I belong..

33 new infiltrators have been PUSHED BACK to where they belong — Bangladesh.

BEWARE: Our stringent efforts continue and will further intensify in the coming days. pic.twitter.com/7e99AuGD5X

— Himanta Biswa Sarma (@himantabiswa) August 30, 2025

This official acknowledgement marks another significant escalation. In May 2025, civil society groups had already documented attempted and unlawful pushbacks of Bengali-speaking Muslim women from Assam, several of whom were subsequently rescued and brought back after widespread outcry. Now, CM Sarma has warned that the crackdown would only intensify. It is crucial to note that CM Sarma did not specify the exact entry point for this latest batch.

Showing Adarniya Shri @AmitShah ji the firm progress we have made in evicting illegal settlers from Assam’s lands. pic.twitter.com/hhcgNAyZa9

— Himanta Biswa Sarma (@himantabiswa) August 30, 2025

As per The Assam Tribune. Law enforcement claims a steady weekly removal of 70 to 100 individuals, enforced by Assam Police and BSF, now on heightened alert across the 1,885 km border with Bangladesh.

Due process bypassed

Revived from dormancy, the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 grants district commissioners the authority to expel individuals entering after March 24, 1971, without tribunal intervention. This draconian tool bypasses due legal process, enabling swift deportations both of long-resident undocumented immigrants and fresh entrants

Since mid-2025, Assam has reported weekly pushbacks ranging between 70 to 100 individuals—a ramped-up, relentless enforcement effort. Surveillance along the 1,885 km Indo–Bangladesh border has been beefed up by the Assam Police and BSF, particularly in historically vulnerable stretches.

Notable, as per Times of India, on multiple occasions, Dhaka has publicly denied accepting individuals pushed across the border by Indian authorities, insisting that only documented Bangladeshi citizens with verified proof can be received. In this context, the Assam government’s claim of pushing back “33 infiltrators” raises unresolved questions: Who verified their nationality? On what legal basis were they expelled? Were Bangladeshi authorities even informed?

Under Indian law, Foreigners Tribunals are the only quasi-judicial bodies authorised to determine questions of citizenship and foreigner status. Deportation requires central government sanction, diplomatic coordination, and formal handover to the other state. By contrast, “pushbacks” involve physically expelling people across the border without judicial or diplomatic procedure. Such actions therefore bypass both due process and constitutional safeguards, undermining the principle of rule of law.

Political messaging vs constitutional duty

Arguments have been raised against Assam government’s repeated claims of “success” in pushing back alleged infiltrators serve a political narrative rather than a legal process. Branding individuals as “illegal foreigners” without tribunal adjudication or central authorisation weaponises citizenship disputes, heightening insecurity among minority communities. This approach stands in sharp contrast to India’s constitutional guarantee of equality before law and due process, as well as its obligations under international human rights law prohibiting arbitrary expulsion.

Yet, legal resistance is growing. Habeas corpus petitions in Gauhati High Court and the Supreme Court challenge the constitutionality of such pushbacks. Families of deportees allege disappearances and forcible handovers without documentation, raising fears of statelessness.

Meanwhile, according to a report of Times of India, opposition leader Debabrata Saikia has called on the Union government to review BSF’s monitoring framework, warning of diplomatic tensions with Dhaka if India persists with unilateral expulsions.

Ultimately, while Sarma’s expulsions play well as a populist performance of strength, they expose deep fractures in Assam’s legal regime—trading due process for political spectacle, and risking human rights violations in the name of security.

Related:

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

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

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

The post Concerns rise along Assam’s escalating pushbacks, 33 additional alleged Bangladeshis “pushed back” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Chief Minister’s remark came in response to a query on whether the state could become volatile if his government proceeded with its plan to issue gun licences exclusively to “original inhabitants” of Assam. His answer: not only is an explosive situation expected, it is welcome.

This is not political theatre. It is policy-as-provocation. Sarma’s statement, and the policies that surround it, point to a deliberate campaign of ethnic polarisation, state-backed dispossession, and Islamophobic scapegoating—paired with corporate interests and executed through a language of legality and security. This exposé traces the calculated threads of that campaign.

Weaponising Identity: The gun licence policy

On May 28, 2025, Sarma first declared that from August 1, the government would allow online applications for arms licences, but only for “indigenous” people—khilonjia—living in “vulnerable remote areas” of five districts: Dhubri, Barpeta, Morigaon, Nagaon, and South Salmara-Mankachar.

One should note that these districts are not arbitrarily chosen. They are overwhelmingly populated by Bengali-speaking Muslims, who the BJP-RSS ecosystem consistently labels as “infiltrators” or “illegal immigrants.” Two of them—Dhubri and South Salmara-Mankachar—border Bangladesh. Sarma cited vague feelings of “insecurity” among indigenous groups as justification, but no evidence of law-and-order breakdown was provided. Instead, the justification seems rooted in demography and fear.

As per The Assam Tribune, Sarma told the media “Someday the situation will be explosive. How will our people survive if there is an explosion?”

He paired this rhetoric with assurances that the “final approval” for gun licences would rest with district commissioners after police verification, as per the Indian Arms Act. But the context, armed mobilisation of one ethnic group in regions where another is numerically dominant, is what makes this policy chilling. It is not about self-defence. It is about creating authorised paramilitarisation of Assamese Hindus in Muslim-majority districts.

The Asom Jatiya Parishad (AJP) condemned the statement as “reckless and dangerous,” saying it “betrays the constitutional duty of a Chief Minister to ensure law and order, not incite unrest.”

“Urging people to bear arms is not just irresponsible—it’s an admission that the government can no longer ensure basic law and order,” said AJP leaders Lurinjyoti Gogoi and Jagadish Bhuyan while addressing a press conference, reported GuwahatiPlus. They further stated that “This is the same government that came to power pledging to protect Jati, Mati, and Bheti, but now it’s propagating fear instead of security.”

Evictions and Ethnic Targeting: The ground beneath the guns

The gun licence policy cannot be separated from another state project unfolding in parallel: massive, violent eviction drives targeting Bengali-speaking Muslims and marginalised tribal populations across Assam.

These evictions, carried out under the guise of forest protection or encroachment removal, have surged dramatically since the Advantage Assam 2.0 Investor Summit in February and the Rising Northeast Investors’ Summit in May 2025.

As provided by Liberation, a central organ of CPI(ML), fact-finding team from CPI(ML) visiting Goalpara’s Ashudubi village on July 16–17 uncovered the scale and cruelty of these operations:

• Over 1,100 houses demolished with 60 bulldozers
• Entire village encircled with trenches to block humanitarian aid
• At least two deaths: Monirul Islam, who committed suicide after receiving an eviction notice; Anaruddin Sheikh, who died of a heart attack as his house was razed
• No rehabilitation or resettlement, despite High Court orders mandating it

The CPI(ML) called the eviction campaign a “war-like operation”. Their report revealed that the eviction area, Ashudubi, had been renamed “Paikan” solely to label it as forest land and circumvent existing settlement rights.

“The victims are poor peasants and working-class Muslim families who have lived in the area for 60–70 years. Government buildings existed there too, but it was renamed and cleared,” the report said.

In the past four years of Sarma’s regime, over 1.19 lakh bighas (roughly 160 sq. km) have been cleared, often with lethal force. These are not isolated instances but part of an escalating trend.

Corporate colonisation behind the curtain

While the public justification for evictions rests on fears of “illegal Bangladeshi settlers,” the actual beneficiaries of the land-clearing campaigns are large corporates:

• Dhubri & Goalpara: 4,000 bighas cleared for Adani’s 3,000 MW thermal plant
• Dima Hasao: Adani cement factory being set up
• Kokrajhar: Adani power project underway
• Karbi Anglong: Reliance constructing compressed biogas plants

The chronological proximity of eviction escalations and investment summits is no coincidence. It reflects a state-backed project of corporate land acquisition, achieved through ethnic cleansing. Communal rhetoric is the political mask for a deeper economic dispossession.

A detailed report on the same may be read here.

Torchlight rallies and calls for exclusion

On July 25, thousands of Assamese and tribal residents in Dhemaji district held a torch rally shouting slogans like “Bangladeshi Go Back” and “Bangladeshi Hosiar.” Their demands: vacate the district in 15 days—or else. The state government has neither condemned the threats nor responded with restraint.

The signs from Assam all indicate an impending mass ethnic cleansing – from the statements of the CM to the social media posts.

And every single institution that is supposed to prevent this is either helpless or unwilling to act. https://t.co/NGkKWrsH5d

— Sarayu Pani (@sarayupani) July 27, 2025

Assamese Awakening
Thousands and Thousands of Assamese and tribals people came out on streets of Dhemaji district with ‘Mashals’ shouting “Bangladeshi Hosiar” “Bangladeshi Go Back” in support of @himantabiswa Government for eviction of suspected Bangladeshi Muslims from… pic.twitter.com/1ckDVSvvLO

— Oxomiya Jiyori (@SouleFacts) July 25, 2025

আপাদমস্তক আত্মসম্মান-বিহীন একটি জাতি। Meanwhile an actual ethnic cleansing similar to the one in 70s and 80s is imminent in Assam. This is what happens when people think of history only in terms of religion and forget that violence and ethnic cleansing can take other forms too. pic.twitter.com/Je4Tt5H2Dn

— Jayati (@Jayati_M93) July 27, 2025

These visuals are chillingly reminiscent of the early 1980s. In 1983, just before the Nellie massacre, in which over 2,000 Bengali-Muslims were butchered, then-BJP leader Atal Bihari Vajpayee gave a speech in Guwahati warning that a “river of blood” would flow if elections were held. In one of his speeches, Vajpayee was quoted as saying, “Foreigners have come here and the government does nothing. What if they had come into Punjab instead? People would have chopped them into pieces and thrown them away.” His words were read into the Lok Sabha record by former CPIM MP Indrajit Gupta in 1996. Today, Sarma’s rhetoric follows the same pattern, this time coupled with arms and state backing. 

NRC Weaponisation: Bengali Hindus not spared

This manufactured polarisation is not confined to Muslims. Bengali-speaking Hindus are also being targeted through revived NRC-linked harassment.

As per media reports that emerged on July 28, in Cooch Behar, West Bengal, 72-year-old egg-seller Nishikanta Das received a Foreigners Tribunal notice from Assam accusing him of illegally entering India between 1966 and 1971. His voter ID, Aadhaar, and ration card were rejected. Though Das proved his citizenship during a police detention in 2001, the tribunal now demands documents in his deceased father’s name.

“My father passed away 45 years ago. I’ve now found the document but will not return to the tribunal. I’ve had enough,” he told The Times of India.

Das’s story highlights that even working-class Hindu migrants are not immune. The Trinamool Congress has alleged that the BJP is using NRC-linked harassment to manufacture fear among all borderland Bengalis—Muslims and Hindus alike. Rajbanshis and Matuas, both marginalised communities, are now in the crosshairs.

Conclusion: A recipe for chaos, not governance

At the heart of Assam’s current political project lies not administrative reform or inclusive development, but a sustained strategy of majoritarian consolidation anchored in fear, suspicion, and cultural dominance. Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma has overseen a carefully layered campaign: one that marries communal dog-whistling with structural violence, cloaking targeted exclusions as policy, and presenting repressive crackdowns as law and order imperatives.

The “indigenous-first” gun licensing policy is not about citizen security but about engineering a psychological state of siege, where “indigenous” Hindus are imagined as under attack and armed self-defence becomes both justified and state-endorsed. Eviction drives, often militarised, disproportionately target Bengali-speaking Muslims, branding them as “encroachers” without legal inquiry or rehabilitation. At the same time, land is quietly handed over to industrial houses or infrastructural projects with opaque benefits for local communities. What is sold to the public as “development” is, in fact, a reordering of land and belonging, violently enforced through bulldozers, police firings, and a language of ethnic hierarchy.

The State’s actions do not exist in isolation. They are embedded within and legitimised by an ideological climate in which Bengali-speaking Muslims are persistently labelled as infiltrators, encroachers, and outsiders, regardless of their legal status, decades of residence, or community contributions. The NRC has left millions in limbo. Yet, no political will has emerged to remedy the resulting humanitarian crisis. Instead, Sarma’s administration continues to leverage this uncertainty as a tool of coercion and compliance.

Worse still, under the guise of this polarisation, it is the poor — across communities — who suffer the most. Whether it is a landless Muslim family evicted from their home at gunpoint, or an Adivasi worker displaced by corporate land takeovers, or a low-income Hindu villager pushed to arm themselves out of fear, the brunt of the state’s divisive politics is borne by those with the least protection and voice. Public resources are redirected to militarisation, surveillance, and spectacle. Welfare is replaced by repression. Governance becomes theatre. The poor become collateral damage in a battle for ideological dominance.

This is not just the story of one Chief Minister’s political ambitions. It is the anatomy of a regime that is weaponising statecraft to redraw the boundaries of citizenship, belonging, and fear. Assam today stands at a precipice where pluralism is under siege, dissent is criminalised, and the very idea of India’s constitutional promise is being hollowed out—bulldozed, one community at a time.

Related:

The contested interpretation of the Immigrant Expulsion from Assam Act, 1950

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

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

Supreme Court and the Rofiqul Hoque Judgment: A new chapter in Assam’s citizenship jurisprudence on discrepancies in documentary evidence

Pushed Out of Sight: The covert deportation and detention crisis at Assam’s Matia detention centre

28,000 cases withdrawn or votes secured? Assam CM’s move to drop ‘Foreigner’ cases against Koch Rajbongshi promise under scrutiny

The post ‘An Explosive Situation’: Gun licences, evictions, and the manufacturing of a majoritarian crisis in Assam appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“These lands will host a Rs 40,000 crore project. Tenders will be issued soon,” Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma said at a press conference on June 22.

But the land in question is not barren. These are villages inhabited by more than 2,500 families, many of whom have lived there for generations, others who settled after their homes were swallowed by the Brahmaputra due to decades of riverbank erosion. These communities, mostly landless, economically marginalised Muslim families, have now been rendered homeless yet again.

Inhabitants say they were given barely 48 hours to dismantle their lives. No formal notices, no rehabilitation plans, no time to carry away their belongings. Some resistance was seen, but was met with massive police deployment, reportedly in the thousands, and dozens of bulldozers. The eviction drive wiped out homes, belongings, schools, a medical sub-centre, and power supply to the area. Schooling and medical services have ground to a halt.

Among the land being cleared, about 1,000 bighas is reportedly owned by patta (land-title) holders, who are being offered Rs 50,000 compensation and relocation, but even this is being questioned as woefully inadequate. “How can Rs 50,000 compensate for generations of stability, for homes, for access to land and schools?” asked one resident, while speaking to The Scroll.

Echoes of resistance in Bodoland

This is not the first time this patch of Assam has seen attempts to clear land for corporate interests. Earlier, a similar tract in the Parbatjhora area of the Bodoland Territorial Region (BTR) was marked for acquisition. But that land fell under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, offering protections to tribal areas. Strong opposition from the Bodo community, backed by segments of Assamese civil society, forced the government to halt the project—at least temporarily.

But in Dhubri, where the displaced are mostly Bengali-origin Muslims without political clout or Sixth Schedule protection, the bulldozers moved unhindered.

Goalpara: Second front of displacement

While homes were being razed in Dhubri, another front of mass eviction was underway in Goalpara district. On June 16, authorities cleared over 1,500 bighas of land in Hasila Beel, displacing 667 families and demolishing homes, shops, five lower primary schools, and a Jal Jeevan Mission water project.

Just weeks later, on July 12, eviction resumed in the Paikan Reserve Forest (PRF), a legally protected forest under the Krishnai Range. Officials said the land was notified as a reserve forest in 1982, but the Goalpara Lawyers’ Association has argued that forest rights claims of thousands living in the area remain unresolved. In 2022, they submitted a memorandum demanding compliance with the Assam Forest Regulation of 1891 and a proper settlement process before evictions.

That call went unheeded.

On July 12, 1,080 families, again largely Bengali-origin Muslims, were evicted. Officials confirmed that 2,700 structures were torn down using 40 bulldozers, with over 1,000 police personnel on site. While the administration claimed the operation was “peaceful,” rights groups argue that “peace” enforced by overwhelming force is not consent, and certainly not justice.

Lawyers and local leaders like Jiten Das and Wazed Ali spoke to The Scroll and pointed out that 472 villages in Goalpara have been lost to erosion over four decades, leaving thousands of displaced people with no alternative but to settle in forest or wetland zones. “These people did not invade the land. They escaped disaster and tried to survive,” said a local advocate, as per the report.

A pattern of targeting the vulnerable

In just a month, five major eviction drives have been carried out in four Assam districts, namely Dhubri, Lakhimpur, Nalbari and Goalpara displacing nearly 3,500 families, most of which are Bengali-origin Muslims. In every case, the pattern is disturbingly familiar: bulldozers arrive with little notice, security forces outnumber the unarmed residents, and no meaningful rehabilitation is offered.

The opposition has strongly criticised the government’s actions, calling the eviction policy arbitrary, anti-poor, and communally biased. There is growing concern that migrant Bengali-speaking Muslims are being selectively targeted, branded as “encroachers” or “illegal foreigners”, despite often having lived on the land for decades, even generations.

Many of the affected areas, such as the Brahmaputra basin and wetlands like Hasila Beel, have become refuge zones for communities displaced by environmental collapse. Now, they are being displaced again—this time by the bulldozer in service of “development.”

Bulldozing justice

The humanitarian cost of these operations is staggering: children pulled out of school, medical services shuttered, families forced to live under tarpaulins, and a future reduced to rubble. No comprehensive resettlement plan exists. No legal forum appears to be actively hearing the residents’ claims.

What the Assam government brands as a victory for industrial growth is, for the displaced, a catastrophic collapse of rights, dignity, and survival. And as bulldozers pave the way for corporate projects like Adani’s, what remains buried beneath the newly cleared land are the broken dreams of the very people who built their lives there—one flood, one setback, one shelter at a time.

Related:

India’s Stealthy Pushback: Thousands of alleged “Bangladeshi immigrants” deported without due process across states

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 Development by Displacement: Assam evicts thousands for Adani project without due process 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.

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.

The announcement comes at a politically significant time—during the ongoing nomination process for the panchayat elections. This has prompted concerns about whether this declaration is a genuine policy measure or merely a tactical “lollipop” to secure the Koch Rajbongshi vote bank before the polls. Especially because there are no ethnic or other specific “markers” for the Koch Rajbongshi tribes that can demographically mark them out as is being claimed.

How can the State identify Koch Rajbongshi individuals in Tribunal cases?

A critical question arising from this announcement is the feasibility of identifying who belongs to the Koch Rajbongshi community from among those facing cases in the Foreigners’ Tribunals. According to several legal aid activists and activists working on the citizenship issue before Assam’s foreigners’ tribunals (FTs), the case records typically do not mention community identities explicitly. In fact, most proceedings mention the mother tongue of the accused as Bengali. Moreover, common surnames such as Roy, Barman, and Sarkar—used widely by both Koch Rajbongshis and Bengali Hindus—further blur community lines.

Given this lack of community-specific data in case records, it remains unclear how the state arrived at the figure of 28,000 Koch Rajbongshi individuals facing cases. There is no legal or administrative categorisation in the Foreigners’ Tribunal system that identifies a person’s ethnicity or tribe or caste, raising serious doubts about the authenticity of this figure.

Ongoing cases raise doubts about implementation

Despite the CM’s assurance that the cases would be revoked immediately, on-ground developments suggest otherwise. It is essential to note that merely two days after the announcement, a person named Kishor Barman—belonging to the Koch Rajbongshi community—was heard in a case at the Kajalgaon Foreigners’ Tribunal. The case is currently being fought by the Assam legal team of Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), and his next hearing is scheduled for April 11, 2025.

If the state truly intends to withdraw all cases against Koch Rajbongshis, why are tribunal proceedings still ongoing for community members like Barman? This discrepancy further undermines the credibility of the Chief Minister’s statement.

Previous announcements and inconsistencies

As provided by local experts, this is not the first time such an announcement has been made. On August 4, 2021, CM Sarma had similarly declared that no new cases would be registered against members of the Gorkha community.

You will be further happy to note that Assam cabinet took a decision today not prosecute any Gorkha citizen under the Citizenship Amendment Act 1955 and also to withdraw all pending prosecution relating to Gorkhas from foreigners tribunals https://t.co/YEYXw0raWe

— Himanta Biswa Sarma (@himantabiswa) August 4, 2021

However, this commitment also appeared hollow in practice. In 2023, Gorkha individuals reportedly had to pay fines to the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) due to the ‘D-voter’ tag, which should not have applied to them if the 2021 decision had been fully implemented. One such case reached the Gauhati High Court, where even a retired Indian Army personnel had to defend his citizenship status.

Contradictions in the “Indigenous” narrative

Another contradiction lies in the government’s use of the term “indigenous” to justify the withdrawal of cases. While the cabinet claims the Koch Rajbongshis are indigenous to Assam, several other communities—such as the Goria, Moria, Deshi, Jolah (tea tribe), and Sayeed Muslims—have also been classified as indigenous by the same government. Yet, thousands from these communities continue to face proceedings in Foreigners’ Tribunals. If indigeneity is the criterion for revoking cases, then why are these communities excluded?

Adding to the confusion is the fact that the Assam Assembly has yet to define the term “original inhabitants” or “Khilonjia.” Without a clear legal framework or official classification, how can the Chief Minister unilaterally decide who qualifies as indigenous and who does not?

Background and political context

The Koch Rajbongshis trace their roots to the historic Kamata kingdom, which spanned parts of modern-day Assam, West Bengal, Nepal, and Bangladesh. Many members of the community migrated over time, especially during the creation of Bangladesh, from regions like Rangpur and Mymensingh. Despite their ancestral connections to Assam, they have been subjected to political and legal harassment, often being labelled as ‘foreigners.’

The demand to withdraw Foreigners’ Tribunal cases against them has been longstanding, tied closely to the community’s demand for Scheduled Tribe (ST) status—a promise first made by the BJP in the run-up to the 2014 Lok Sabha elections.

According to the Union Government’s affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court on December 11, 2023, a total of 3,34,966 cases had been disposed of by the 100 Foreigners’ Tribunals operational in Assam, and 97,714 cases remained pending as of October 31, 2023. CM Sarma’s claim that 28,000 of these pending cases belong to the Koch Rajbongshi community thus raises serious questions—especially in the absence of any demographic mechanism within the tribunals to identify community affiliation.

Conclusion: An announcement riddled with unanswered questions

While the announcement may seem historic and progressive at first glance, it is riddled with inconsistencies, practical difficulties, and electoral undertones. Without a clear mechanism to identify Koch Rajbongshi individuals in Foreigners’ Tribunal records, and with ongoing cases contradicting the promise of blanket withdrawal, the credibility of the government’s decision remains in serious doubt.

Unless the state releases a transparent, verifiable methodology explaining how it identified the 28,000 cases and issues concrete instructions to tribunals, this announcement risks being yet another political stunt dressed up as a policy reform—offering hope without substance.

Related:

Hate speech allegations on the campaign trail: CJP Files complaints with State EC against Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma’s Jharkhand remarks

Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma’s allegedly casteist social media post, raises concerns of promoting oppression

Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma gives hate speeches in poll bound Karnataka, indulges in a divisive diatribe

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

The post 28,000 cases withdrawn or votes secured? Assam CM’s move to drop ‘Foreigner’ cases against Koch Rajbongshi promise under scrutiny appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In its complaints, CJP highlights specific instances where Sarma has allegedly called for support based on communal fears, suggesting that a BJP-led government would protect voters from a perceived demographic threat. Furthermore, Sarma’s rhetoric reportedly included calls for renaming places of Muslim origin, a symbolic action that, as per CJP, stigmatises an entire community and reinforces an “us versus them” mentality. CJP argues that these statements contravene Section 123(3) of the RPA, which prohibits communal appeals during elections. The organisation has urged the ECI to take action, including publicly censuring Sarma, restricting his campaign activities in Jharkhand, and deploying teams to monitor campaign speeches to maintain peace and electoral fairness throughout the state.

Complaint 1: Stoking Divisions through demands of place-name changes, communal remarks

CJP filed a detailed complaint with the State Election Commission against CM Sarma, citing inflammatory speeches he delivered during election campaigns in Jharkhand. CJP argues that Sarma’s speeches promote communal fear and divisiveness, with particular targeting of the Muslim community, which violates the MCC and key provisions in the RPA, specifically Section 123 that prohibits electioneering based on communal or religious sentiments. Delivered between October 24 and November 2, 2024, these speeches allegedly contribute to a charged and hostile environment in Jharkhand, a state with a diverse population that includes Hindu, Muslim, and Adivasi communities which is soon seeing elections.

CJP outlined specific instances of Sarma’s speeches in Palamu, Deoghar, and Jamshedpur, where he spoke of the Muslim population growth as a result of alleged illegal immigration from Bangladesh. Sarma’s rhetoric portrayed Muslims as “infiltrators” who threaten the cultural and demographic balance of Jharkhand, and he linked the BJP’s political victory with a pledge to deport these individuals. In Panki, Palamu, for example, he referred to rising Muslim demographics as a deliberate effort to destabilise local Hindu and Adivasi communities, framing the election as a fight to “drive out infiltrators” to protect “Sanatan Dharma.” CJP argues that these statements lack empirical backing and serve primarily to stoke fears, exacerbating communal divides.

In addition, CJP highlighted that Sarma’s rhetoric included provocative language regarding place names with Muslim origins, such as “Hussainabad.” Sarma implied that such names are incongruous with Jharkhand’s heritage and promised to change them if BJP wins, ostensibly to honor Adivasi leaders instead. This emphasis on renaming as a symbolic act against Muslim influence, CJP contends, promotes a divisive narrative that frames religious communities as incompatible with each other, fostering alienation and distrust. According to the complaint, such rhetoric pits communities against one another, manipulating cultural insecurities to influence voters.

CJP’s complaint emphasises that Sarma’s speeches go beyond electioneering by using fear-based messaging, promoting damaging stereotypes, and casting suspicion on the Muslim community. This tactic, CJP argues, shifts the focus of the electoral discourse from governance and development to communal identity, drawing attention away from vital issues such as infrastructure, economic growth, and social welfare. By invoking communal insecurities and fears, Sarma’s statements discourage voters from making informed decisions on policy matters, steering them instead toward identity-based voting, which undermines democratic integrity and civic cohesion.

In response to these serious concerns, CJP has requested immediate action from the Election Commission to safeguard Jharkhand’s communal harmony and electoral integrity. They urge the Commission to issue a public censure against Sarma, prohibiting him from further campaigning in Jharkhand, and to impose penalties on the BJP for allowing these divisive practices. CJP also suggests that the Commission deploy monitors to review campaign speeches throughout the election period to prevent further hate speech and polarising rhetoric. Through these actions, CJP aims to promote a fair, lawful, and inclusive electoral process that prioritises development over divisive identity politics.

The complaint may be read here.

Complaint 2: Incitement through Anti-Muslim Campaign Rhetoric

This complaint raises serious concerns over alleged inflammatory and communal statements made by CM Sarma during a Jharkhand election campaign rally on November 8, 2024. CJP contends that Sarma’s speech, in which he targeted the Muslim community by labelling them as “infiltrators” and suggesting they pose a threat to local demographics and safety, violates the MCC and sections of the RPA. CJP argues that these statements incite fear, spread religious polarisation, and disrupt communal harmony, undermining democratic principles that elections are meant to uphold.

The complaint specifies several instances in which Sarma used divisive language, describing Muslims as a demographic threat to Jharkhand’s Hindu and Adivasi populations and urging voters to support the BJP as a safeguard against “infiltrators.” These statements, CJP claims, amount to an appeal to religion for electoral gain, which contravenes Section 123(3) of the RPA prohibiting communal appeals in elections. CJP further argues that Sarma’s rhetoric portrays Muslims as illegitimate outsiders, creating a divisive mentality that encourages hate and distrust among communities.

CJP also outlines the potential impact of Sarma’s remarks on Jharkhand’s social fabric and electoral environment, arguing that his language manipulates voters through fear rather than engaging with real issues of governance. The complaint suggests that Sarma’s statements divert political discourse from constructive debate on policies and public welfare, shifting it toward identity politics that divides communities. This approach, CJP warns, undermines the democratic integrity of the electoral process by prioritising religious polarisation over unity and dialogue.

In light of these violations, CJP urges the Jharkhand State Election Commission to take immediate action, including issuing a public censure of Sarma, prohibiting his participation in further campaigning in Jharkhand, and directing the BJP to refrain from communal appeals. Additionally, CJP requests the deployment of monitoring teams to review campaign speeches across Jharkhand to ensure compliance with the MCC and maintain an environment of peace and fairness throughout the electoral process.

The complaint may be read here.

Related:

CJP moves CEO Maharashtra with three complaints over Suresh Chavhanke’s MCC violations

Media accountability in action: Four contentious shows taken down by NBDSA based on CJP’s complaints

CJP seeks action against BJP leaders for alleged hate speech amid Jharkhand polls

MCC Violation: Thane police booked hate offender Kajal Hindustani following CJP’s Complaint

The post Divisive rhetoric on Jharkhand campaign trail: CJP files two complaint against 4 speeches by Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The office memorandum, issued by the Home and Political Department of Assam, emphasised the need to enhance border security, citing the detection of illegal immigrants as a critical national security issue. According to the memo, 54 individuals have been identified as illegal immigrants since January, with 45 of them deported to their country of origin. The notice stressed the absence of non-Indian origin residents in Assam’s upper and northern districts, framing the detection and removal of such individuals as essential to protecting national interests.

The said memorandum was shared on social media by CM Sarma, along with the caption that “We are intensifying efforts to remove illegal immigrants from Assam. The State Government is initiating a series of coordinated actions that include enhanced surveillance, closer coordination with central agencies, additional deployment of force among others.”

The post may be accessed here:

We are intensifying efforts to remove illegal immigrants from Assam. The State Government is initiating a series of coordinated actions that include enhanced surveillance, closer coordination with central agencies, additional deployment of force among others. @HMOIndia pic.twitter.com/DozR1GwTqJ

— Himanta Biswa Sarma (@himantabiswa) September 7, 2024

Details of the memorandum:

The memorandum lists a total of eleven ways in which the state government plans to detect illegal immigration across the borders, which include increase in border surveillance and patrolling, coordination with Border Security Agencies, and regular intelligence gatherings to find ways to deploy more trained personnel. The memorandum also refers to making efforts to increase community engagement and awareness and taking timely legal action.

Furthermore, the memorandum states that it will strengthen border outposts to identify suspicious individuals lacking valid identification as well as activate village/field-level government functionaries to gather information on new and unknown person of suspected nationality.

It is essential to point out here that the Supreme Court has repeatedly criticised the Assam government for its arbitrary, and often discriminatory practices, in accusing individuals of being foreigners and subjecting them to the arduous process of proving their citizenship. In a significant judgment of July 11, 2024, the bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah had observed that authorities cannot randomly accuse people of being foreigners and initiate investigation into a person’s nationality without there being some material basis or information to sustain the suspicion.

In its order, the bench had expressed dismay at the casual manner in which the authorities had initiated proceedings on mere suspicion without any material.

“The question is that does Section 9 of the Act empower the Executive to pick a person at random, knock at his/her/their door, tell him/her/they/them ‘We suspect you of being a foreigner.’, and then rest easy basis Section 9? Let us contextualise this to the facts at hand.” (Para 34)

The bench had then proceeded to emphasise upon the requirement for the authorities to have material or information for suspecting a person to be a foreigner.

“First, it is for the authorities concerned to have in their knowledge or possession, some material basis or information to suspect that a person is a foreigner and not an Indian.” (Para 35)

This judicial rebuke underscores the state’s failure to implement a transparent, fair, and consistent mechanism, fuelling communal tensions and exacerbating the hardships faced by vulnerable populations. These arbitrary practices that have been adopted by the Assam government have disproportionately targeted marginalised communities, especially Bengali speaking Muslims, who are forced to navigate an opaque and hostile legal system. In many of the case, suspected individuals, despite being lifelong residents of India, are accused of illegal immigration with little or no substantial evidence. The process to defend one’s citizenship often involves costly and lengthy legal battles, which have driven many into despair and financial ruin. India’s Constitutional Courts have time and again condemned the state’s actions as a violation of basic human rights, noting that the Foreigners Tribunals have rendered unjust decisions, later overturned by higher courts, further highlighting the flaws in Assam’s approach to immigration and nationality. With the issue of the said memorandum, there is a potential of an increase in the number of people being arbitrarily suspected.

Surveillance intensified

Other than this, the present memorandum also mentions methods such as capturing of biometrics and Aadhaar numbers of suspected individuals, along with recording the numbers of their PAN card, Voter ID or passport, if any are possessed. The confiscation or denial of Aadhaar cards and other identification documents like PAN cards, Voter IDs, or passports from individuals suspected of being foreigners is a deeply problematic practice that violates their fundamental rights. Aadhaar, while not officially linked to citizenship, is essential for accessing basic services such as healthcare, education, and welfare schemes. By depriving individuals of these documents, the government is effectively stripping them of their ability to function in society, pushing them further into marginalisation. This practice not only criminalises people based on suspicion but also precludes them from defending themselves adequately, as they are deprived of the necessary identification to access legal and social protections. Moreover, such actions perpetuate a cycle of bureaucratic exclusion, where the burden of proving citizenship becomes increasingly difficult without access to essential documents, making the system even more unjust for those falsely accused.

Discrimination in issuance of Aadhar cards?

It is crucial to point out here that on September 7, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma had also announced that the state of Assam will be introducing “certain safety measures on the process of allotment of Aadhaar cards.” According to Sarma, this step is in response to the “worrying” data that the state government plans to implement stricter Aadhaar application requirements starting October 1, 2024. Applicants will now be required to provide their National Register of Citizens (NRC) application number, irrespective of whether their name appears in the final NRC list (of exclusions) or not. The much criticised NRC process that resulted in the exclusions of a final 19,00,000 (19 lakh) persons on August 31, 2024 has, shockingly, five years after that date still not provided those excluded for the rationale or grounds of their inclusion in the excluded list! While the state’s failure to provide this basic information, five years down remains a violation of fundamental principles of natural justice, the same state persists in further disenfranchising its own citizens.

The announcement of these new requirements has brought forth concerns of a deepening of crisis for marginalised sections and re-opening, by a backdoor of the NRC process. Put together, this could create significant challenges for Assam’s residents. The NRC process in Assam has already faced criticism for its lack of transparency and its impact on vulnerable populations, especially the Bengali speaking Muslims, Santhals, Bnegali Namosudras etc. Adding the requirement for NRC application numbers to the Aadhaar process introduces an illegality and additional bureaucratic hurdles. More people of Assam will now not have easy access to Aadhaar cards, needed to access government schemes, school admissions, and open bank accounts. This is heaping further obstacles on a people facing long-standing legal and bureaucratic battles over their citizenship status, requiring them to now navigate a more complex system to access basic services. (Detailed report on the same can be read here.)

The notice also outlined a plan to strengthen border surveillance by enhancing coordination with the Border Security Force and other central agencies, bolstering intelligence-gathering capabilities, and enforcing provisions of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).

The complete memorandum can be accessed here:

A volatile crisis fuelled by government overreach and communal rhetoric?

A potentially volatile situation appears to be brewing in Assam, driven by the state government’s aggressive and arbitrary actions toward “suspected illegal immigrants”, a misnomer that fuels hysteria that then becomes a ground for targeting the Bengali-speaking Muslim community. Despite numerous rulings from the High Court and Supreme Court overturning Tribunal decisions, the Assam government continues to push a hard-line approach. A striking example is the case of Rahim Ali, who was declared a foreigner by a tribunal but posthumously had his citizenship restored by the Supreme Court two years after his death. His legal battle had lasted for a total of 12 years. (Report can be accessed here.) This highlights the inherent flaws in the Foreigners Tribunal process, which often renders unjust verdicts, only to be corrected by higher courts after causing irreparable harm.

These steps come in the shadow of early September, when the visuals of heartache and separation filled the air as the Assam police bus had separated 28 families in Assam, carrying one member from each family while their kin had helplessly stood on the road. On September 2, in Assam’s Barpeta district, 28 individuals—19 men and 9 women—were torn from their homes, ripped from the embrace of their families, and labelled “declared foreigners.”  These individuals, all from the Bengali Muslim community, were summoned to the Superintendent of Police’s office under the pretence of signing documents on Monday. Instead, they were placed onto a bus bound for the infamous Matia transit camp in Goalpara district, 50 km away. (Detailed report can be read here). This underscores the government’s persistent disregard for due process.

The aforementioned memorandum issued by the Assam government escalates the situation further by instructing authorities to collect biometric data, Aadhaar numbers, PAN cards, and other identification documents from those suspected of being foreigners. This directive is just similar to controversial 2019 National Register of Citizens (NRC) process, during which the biometrics of 27 lakh individuals were captured and frozen for five years. Many of these individuals were deprived of essential services as their Aadhaar cards were blocked, despite their inclusion in the final NRC draft. It took prolonged legal battles, led by organisations like Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) with their and individuals such as Sushmita Dev, to have the locked biometric data released. The current memorandum threatens to repeat this exclusionary tactic, leaving vulnerable communities in a state of constant fear and uncertainty.

It is essential to note that on August 28, 2024 after a protracted wait of five years, the Assam government announced that 9,35,682 people in the state would finally receive their long-delayed Aadhaar cards. Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma had, in a press conference, revealed that the central government had instructed the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to issue Aadhaar cards to the 9,35,682 people who had submitted their biometrics between February 2019 and August 2024. However, the decision to unblock the Aadhaar cards for only a fraction of these individuals—just over 9 lakhs—raises pressing concerns about the fate of the remaining 18,07,714 people who are still waiting for resolution. No information was provided about the criteria used to select these individuals, nor was there any transparency about the remaining 18,07,714 people who continue to be denied this essential identification document. (More details can be read here.) 

Further fuelling this tension in Assam are the inflammatory remarks made by Assam’s Chief Minister Sarma, and the ruling BJP, which have stoked Islamophobia and deepened communal divisions. Sarma’s repeated targeting of the “Miya Muslim” community has created an atmosphere of suspicion and hatred, exacerbating fears of religious discrimination. His statements, both in political rallies and within the Assam Assembly, have amplified communal polarisation and drawn widespread criticism for promoting hate speech. With a toxic mix of government overreach, flawed legal processes, and divisive rhetoric, Assam is teetering on the edge of a crisis, and unless these issues are addressed, the situation could quickly spiral out of control.

Related:

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

Families torn asunder: 28 Bengali Muslims taken from homes, detained as “Declared Foreigners” in Assam

Assam CM call to expel ‘Miya Muslims,’ leads to violence against Bengali speaking Muslim Labourers

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

Assam CM compares districts of Assam with Bangladesh; calls some of the districts ‘tiny Bangladesh’

Vindicated: Sher Ali and Jamila Khatun’s Triumph over False Accusations of Foreigners, get declared Indian by Foreigners Tribunal

The post Assam government’s efforts to intensify crackdown on “Suspected/Declared Foreigners” sparks fears of brute targeting & rights denials appeared first on SabrangIndia.