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.

In another blow for the Himanta Biswas Sarma Government on child marriage crackdown in Assam, the Guwahati High Court reprimanded the state government for lodging the accused at the Detention Center, Matia. 

In the recent crackdown on child marriage, which Assam Government  launched on February 3 this year, over 3,047 accused was arrested. A total of 4,235 case had been registered against 6,707 accused persons in the state till February 17.  Among them 2,587 persons were sent to judicial custody while 56 were in police custody. The state CM Himanta Biswa Sarma informed via social media. 

It was then reported that most of the jails were overcrowded due to the large scale arrests. The Inspector General (law & order) of Assam Police, Prashanta Kumar Bhuyan told the media on February 7 that they have set up two large temporary jails to house the arrested individuals during the crackdown against child marriage. One is in Goalpara and the other is in Cachar district. 

The Guwahati High Court on February 28, reminded the state about the nature of Detention Camp that is not supposed to house persons accused in criminal matters.  While expressing displeasure, the court, a division bench comprising Chief Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Sumitra Saikia found the State’s decision to be strange and prima facie unacceptable, reported Livelaw. 

“If you want to enhance your prison capacity, do it in the place where the prisons are constructed. Why do you need to convert this detention centre into a prison?,” the bench questioned.

On Tuesday, while justifying the state move to put the accused in the detention center, Advocate General for the State, D Saikia submitted that the state government has partitioned the detention camp and made the temporary jail to avoid ‘mixing’. The Detection camp has a capacity to hold 3,000 people but presently only 200 person reside in it, he submitted.

Interestingly, the main motive behind the creation of Detention cum Transit Camp was to keep only the “suspected foreigners” in it. 

As per UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Guidelines on the Applicable Criteria and Standards relating to the Detention of Asylum-Seekers and Alternatives to Detention, 2012  detention can happen only in officially recognized places of detention and prisons should be avoided for such purposes.

The court stressed on the same issue the State ought to have a separate place. “(You have) built a Centre of this magnitude. You must be thinking of bringing in people from other areas also. So if you start bringing ordinary criminals into the facility, you will be compromising …”

It said, “If you want to do capacity building exercises, you do for the prisons. You can’t encroach upon an institution which is meant only for the persons who are not convicts or offenders. They may be in the wrong place at the wrong time, maybe because of a number of circumstances but you can’t keep them with ordinary criminals.”

The order may be read here: 

Related:

Families protest arrests as questions mount on child marriage crackdown in Assam

Crackdown on child marriage claims four lives, including three women and one child

Asia’ biggest permanent “detention camp”, Matia Transit Camp, opens in Assam

The post Cannot keep ‘suspected foreigners’ with ordinary criminals: Gauhati High Court appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Gujarat High Court has ordered release of a person detained by Gujarat’s Special Operation Group, on suspicion of being a Bangladeshi national, as principles of natural justice were not followed upon his detention. The Division Bench of Justices Sonia Gokani and Nirzar S Desai noted that the detaining authority has unbridled powers and a report was prepared against the detainee without awarding him any opportunity of being heard. He has been kept under detention since June 2020.

Background

The petitioner’s son was allegedly illegally detained by the Special Operation Group (SOG). She submitted that she has been living in Ahmedabad for a long time and has an Election Card, Ration Card as also Aadhaar Card. But when the corpus (her son) was born, registration of his birth was unknown to her, as she was unlettered. She stated that she was even rehabilitated with her family in the aftermath of the Gujarat riots of 2002 and received a plot and Rs. 50,000/- from the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation in the name of her husband Sidiq Doudbhai Shaikh.

In June 2020, her son was detained by SOG on the suspicion that he is an illegal migrant from Bangladesh and was taken to a detention center. She made several visits to the police station as well as the detention centre, but her son was not released, hence she moved court.

She submitted that her son “is illegally detained in absence of any FIR or any formal complaint and without any sincere efforts to identify the genuineness of his citizenship. This conduct has become a trend and the only victims of this atrocious conduct are the poor citizens of India staying in slums and who are marginalized and voiceless.”

She further submitted, “What is fundamentally flawed in the whole attempt to detain and question the citizenship of the detenue is the fact that when his parents’ citizenship is not questioned and they are deemed to be citizens of India then, how could their child’s citizenship be put to scrutiny and that too, in the complete violation of due process.”

She put forth her complete family history right from her grandparents to her husband’s family lineage and how her husband had moved from West Bengal to Ahmedabad in search for work after which he married her in Ahmedabad itself. She also submitted that they are casual labourers and have a meagre source of income.

She further submitted that her son was born in 1984 and Section 3 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 provides that all those who are born on or after 26th Day of January, 1950 but before the 1st Day of July, 1987, shall be citizens by birth; further both his parents are citizens of India. Even in his School Leaving Certificate it is stated that he was born in West Bengal.

Plight of other detainees

Narrating the plight of other detainees, the petitioner submitted that “15 to 18 other detenue in the SOG premises are there, and one detenue named Zahid is lodged there for about more than 8 years. One Mr. Pannu is there for more than 4 years. A lady is also there for a long time who is separately kept in presence of women police. There is one detenue namely Saiful who was brought a day prior to the corpus and others and they are languishing there without any proper inquiry or trial in SOG Centre.” She added that there was no allegation of custodial violence of ill treatment against SOG by her son.

Respondent’s submissions

The SOG submitted that the corpus, Amir Sidikbhai Shaikh is the citizen of Bangladesh and is originally resident of Village: Diyadanga Post Kaile, Thana: Kaliya, District: Nodail (Bangladesh). He was detained and he never produced any documentary evidence to prove citizenship. He was detained under Section 3 (2)(g) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and under Section 5 of the Foreigners Order, 1948 so also as per the notification of the State Government dated 02.12.1960. It was further submitted that except the copy of the Aadhaar Card, no other document had been produced and as per section 9 of The Aadhar Act, the Aadhar Card is not the document of citizenship.

Comments of Additional Solicitor General

The court had called upon Additional Solicitor General Devang Vyas to address the Court on the procedure of deportation of illegal nationals. He stated that there are two kinds of persons who can be called illegal:

– those who have already travelled on a travel document and such a document has expired and they continued to stay illegally, and,

– those who have entered illegally.

In the latter, the first step would be verification of nationality to begin the deportation process. The State Authority would contact the ministry of external affairs and would request nationality verification, the ministry would send to the High Commission of Bangladesh requesting them to verify the nationality, to issue a travel permit and upon verification of nationality, such travel permit is issued and deportation of the detainee happens. However, there is no time frame for this process.

The court noted the procedure to be followed under the Foreigners Act and noted that for the purpose of prohibiting, regulating or restricting the entry of foreigners into India the Central Government has the power to make provision either generally or with respect to all foreigners. Therefore, to say that by way of interim measures, the powers exercised are of only restriction, does not go with the scheme of the provision which does not provide for the restriction but speaks of the arrest, detention or confinement.

The court further noted that under section 8 when a foreigner is recognised as a national by law of more than one country or where it is uncertain what nationality is to be ascribed to him, he may be treated as the national of the country with which he appears to be most closely connected for the time being in interest or sympathy or of the country with which he was last so connected.

The court being conscious of precedents and also conscious of the fact that in the event of deciding the question of nationality, the issue shall have to be raised before the appropriate authority by the petitioner, restricted its inquiry into the validity and propriety of the order passed by the civil authority by examining the principles of administrative law. It said, “It shall have to be questioned as to whether the order passed was legal, rational and the procedural propriety also shall need to be inquired into. The principle of natural justice would demand the hearing as also considering the material which has been placed before the authority concerned.”

The court noted that the inquiry made by the detaining authority was limited to the visa and passport of the corpus at the time of detention and at this stage, before the court, many other documents were produced. “There has been no inquiry at all made of the parents of the present corpus as the mother is the petitioner and her nationality is not questioned nor doubted even,” the court pointed out. The court also noted that the corpus has no criminal background and has a wife of Indian nationality and has children as well. It observed, “The Central Government has delegated the powers to the civil authority which is from the State Government and the powers also are given to them to inquire into the nationality of a person, therefore, the powers are to be exercised in accordance with law. The least that is expected of the person who has been given such wide and vital powers of recommending the deportation of a person on the basis that he is not an Indian national, is to avail an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned.”

The court specifically noted that it had questioned the Prosecutor as to whether there is any notice given and a separate opportunity has been made available for those who have been suspected as foreign nationals, to adduce the relevant material for proving the nationality.

The Court did not cast any doubt on the identity of the corpus and noted that his entire family is in India, and said, “The report prepared by the DCP was without even availing opportunity to the corpus and the Additional Commissioner has acted upon the same. We are conveyed that till date, nothing has moved and the corpus continues to be at the detention centre. When serious flaw is noticed in observing principles of natural justice, without entering the issue of nationality, on a limited ground of non-availment of opportunity, this Court deems it appropriate to intervene and to that limited extent, indulgence would be inevitable, noticing unbridled powers assigned to the authority, of course, for catching illegal/unauthorized nationals. Resultantly, the opportunity requires to be availed noticing apparent breach of administrative law and very peculiar facts concerning respondent no.3 and his family.”

The court directed that the corpus be released within one week of this order on certain terms and conditions to ensure his availability if he cannot satisfy the authority on the strength of his testimonials.

The complete judgement may be read here:

Related:

Once declared citizen, same person cannot be declared foreigner by another FT: Gauhati HC
Gauhati HC directs petitioner to apply for citizenship under CAA
Assam woman first declared Indian, then foreigner; Gauhati HC sets her free

The post Guj HC orders release of suspected foreigner detained without being given opportunity to be heard appeared first on SabrangIndia.