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

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

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

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

Matia Detention Centre: Tuesday May 27

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

English Translation below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The copy of this complaint may be read here.

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma’s public endorsement

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

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

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

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

What does the on-the-ground data say?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The complete order may be read below.

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

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

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

Indian Constitutional courts have historically affirmed these principles:

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

However, recent developments signal a regression.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The details of the previous order can be read here.

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

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

Related:

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

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

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

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