SC's Refusal to Entertain Plea on Assam Govt's ‘Illegal Deportations' and What it Means
हिंदी తెలుగు اردو
Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion
Support independent journalism. Donate Now
Top Stories
SC's Refusal to Entertain Plea on Assam Govt's 'Illegal Deportations' and What it Means
Tarushi Aswani
39 minutes ago
The petitioner claimed that the BJP government in Assam was arbitrarily ousting Indian citizens to Bangladesh without following any process under the pretext of deporting undocumented migrants.
View of the Supreme Court on May 5, 2025. Photo: PTI/Kamal Kishore.
Real journalism holds power accountable
Since 2015, The Wire has done just that.
But we can continue only with your support.
Contribute now
New Delhi: On June 2, the Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea filed by the All B.T.C. Minority Students' Union (ABMSU) raising concerns over the Himanta Biswa Sarma-led Assam government's 'indiscriminate' drive to 'push back' individuals who have been declared foreigners by the Foreigners Tribunals (FT) in the state.
Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma dismissed the petition and suggested that the petitioner organisation approach the Gauhati high court for appropriate relief.
Filed by ABMSU, a social organisation based in Assam's Bodoland, the writ petition questioned the growing pattern of deportations conducted by the Assam Police and administrative machinery through an informal mechanism of 'pushing back', without observance of the safeguards mandated by the constitution or the Supreme Court.
The union has claimed that the Bharatiya Janata Party government in Assam was arbitrarily ousting Indian citizens to Bangladesh without following any process under the pretext of deporting undocumented migrants.
The petition filed through advocate Adeel Ahmed says that, 'This policy of 'push back' is being executed in border districts like Dhubri, South Salmara and Goalpara – it is not only legally indefensible but also threatens to render stateless numerous Indian citizens, especially those from poor and marginalised communities who were either declared foreigners ex parte or have no access to legal aid to challenge their status.'
The petition also adds that such actions are in a direct conflict with the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the constitution, and violate binding judicial precedents laid down by the Supreme Court, including the judgment in 'Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955' case.
This petition emanates from the recent rise in the number of detentions of declared foreigners in Assam since May 23. Families have claimed that they have no information on their relatives' whereabouts. Some of them have identified their missing relatives in videos from Bangladesh, alleging they were forcibly sent across the border.
Take the case of Khairul Islam for instance: on May 24, Islam and eight others were picked up from different parts of Morigaon district, but family members claimed they were not told about their whereabouts. Islam, a former teacher, along with his three siblings, was declared a foreigner by the FT in 2016, against which he had approached the Gauhati high court. The high court had upheld the FT's decision, leading to Islam's detention in 2018. He was set free in 2020 following a Supreme Court general order for releasing all detainees who have spent more than two years term. On May 31, Islam, who was detained by the Assam police on the charges of being a foreigner and allegedly deported to Bangladesh, was brought back to his home in Morigaon district, an officer had said. From May 27 until the morning of May 31, Islam and the others were reported to be in no man's land, between India and Bangladesh.
Such deportation drives are being undertaken as a result of the Supreme Court's recent order, the petition claims. The said order delivered in February this year, rapped the state for not initiating the process of deporting 63 individuals who have been declared foreigners by the FT on the ground that their addresses are unknown.
The petition has also submitted that the said order, which pertain specifically to 63 named individuals whose nationality had been verified by the Ministry of External Affairs, is now being indiscriminately applied by the respondent state and law enforcement agencies to detain and forcibly deport several persons without due process. These include individuals not named in the Annexure to the affidavit dated February 3, 2025, and persons who have not received FT orders or have not been afforded the opportunity to challenge or review such orders.
The petitioner has also submitted that 'they are in possession of credible material-including news reports, family testimonies, and field verification-indicating that numerous individuals have already been deported or are on the verge of being pushed across the international border under a purported 'push back' policy'.
This policy, the petitioner has stated is being implemented in absence of any judicial oversight or constitutional safeguards, poses an imminent threat to the fundamental rights of numerous Indian citizens.
In addition to this, more than 2,000 alleged illegal Bangladeshi immigrants are estimated to have been 'pushed back' across the border by Indian authorities since Operation Sindoor began in the early hours of May 7, following a nationwide verification exercise, The Indian Express has reported.
Amid these 'illegal deportations' which the Supreme Court has refused to acknowledge, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights also released a statement regarding at least 40 Rohingya refugees who were detained in New Delhi and cast into the sea by the Indian navy near the maritime border with Myanmar. The refugees, including children and women, swam for their life, but their whereabouts in Myanmar remain unknown, the agency said.
The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
Make a contribution to Independent Journalism
Related News
Himanta Justifies Govt's Strategy of Pushing Back 'Foreigners' Into Bangladesh, Cites SC Order
Assam 'Re-Arrests': NHRC Complaint, Pleas in Courts Reflect Fears of Forced Deportation
India 'Pushing Back' Undocumented Bangladesh Nationals, 300 Migrants Sent Back this Month: Report
Over 700 Undocumented Bangladeshi Migrants in Delhi Sent Back in Last Six Months
'Thrown Into the Sea': How India Allegedly Deported 38 Rohingya Refugees Without Due Process
'A Dharamshala?': What the SC Said While Rejecting a Sri Lankan Tamil Man's Plea Against Deportation
'Tortured Like Criminals': Rohingya Refugees Reveal Chilling Details of Police Abuse Amid Deportations
Why the SC-Ordered Probe Into Assam's Fake Encounters Is Significant
Amid Bangladesh's Objection, India Continues to 'Push Back' Undocumented Migrants Across Border
View in Desktop Mode
About Us
Contact Us
Support Us
© Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
18 minutes ago
- Time of India
Fish in new waters
Times of India's Edit Page team comprises senior journalists with wide-ranging interests who debate and opine on the news and issues of the day. Trump's extortionate tariffs needn't badly hurt seafood exporters. But governments have to act fast India's fisheries industry, seen as a sunrise sector, is in uncharted waters thanks to Trump's tariffs. India is the second-largest fish-producing country in the world, accounting for 8% of global production. In fact, seafood exports in 2024-25 reached an impressive $7.38bn. However, the sector is bracing for a whopping 59.72% in US duties if Washington goes ahead with the additional 25% tariff linked to Russian oil on top of the already announced 25% plus 5.76% countervailing duty and 3.96% anti-dumping duty. This will simply price out Indian producers and exporters from the US market. And that is a significant blow because 92% of India's seafood export is shrimp with more than 40% of this shrimp export heading to US. The situation calls for serious support to the industry that employs about 28mn people directly. In the long term, however, the industry must become more efficient not just to insulate itself from the vagaries of global trade but also challenges such as climate change. First, GOI must try to offset the potential loss of the US market by stitching up favourable trade deals with other countries that aid the fisheries industry. The India-UK FTA is a good template. Indian seafood exports to UK – currently valued at Rs 1,000cr – attracted 8.9% duty. With the deal that will come down to zero. We need similar deals with other lucrative markets such as EU. Second, there's an urgent need to harness untapped potential. Budget 2025-26 provides for a framework for sustainable harnessing of marine resources in India's exclusive economic zones and high seas. This must be expedited to increase seafood production. Third, India is facing stiff competition from other producers such as Ecuador, Indonesia, Vietnam and Thailand. To counter this, we need better marketing, storage and transportation to gain efficiency in distribution and sales. Finally, global warming-induced challenges are on the horizon. These range from increasing acidity of oceans to declining dissolved oxygen levels in inland water bodies. Hence, the fisheries industry needs to be backed by serious R&D to facilitate the adoption of new technologies and sustainable practices. Only this will keep the growth momentum going. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email This piece appeared as an editorial opinion in the print edition of The Times of India.
Time of India
18 minutes ago
- Time of India
First tango in five years
Indian & Chinese interests diverge in South Asia and the Indo-Pacific. But globally, in the face of Trumpian disorder, India's strategic, economic and technological interests lie in working with China There is growing public interest in what will be the political engagement that takes place between India and China over the coming weeks. This is because, amid a world in disorder, as India's relations with US, its most consequential partner, enter a difficult period, China is beginning to look better than at any time in the previous five years. Read the full story on TOI+. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
Time of India
18 minutes ago
- Time of India
Straying from reason
Times of India's Edit Page team comprises senior journalists with wide-ranging interests who debate and opine on the news and issues of the day. Why two-judge SC bench directions on street dogs urgently need a close second look by top court Monday's Supreme Court direction on stray dogs raises several troubling questions. First, parts of the directives issued by the bench contradict existing rules. Animal Birth Control rules, under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, clearly state that strays cannot be relocated. Various SC orders, including one passed recently, have upheld these rules. There's an existing advisory from the Animal Welfare Board on this. For another SC bench to direct authorities to 'forget the rules' is extraordinary. One of the top court's key roles is to ensure rules are followed. Parenthetically, let's note that, as reported by TOI on Monday, an earlier order by the same SC bench criticising HC judges drew the disapproval of CJI Gavai and Justice Surya Kant. Second, Monday's directives on strays are unimplementable. Animal welfare experts point out that for Delhi's strays, thousands of shelters will have to be built, in areas without human habitation. Land acquisition of this scale in a crowded city or in the wider NCR area will be impossible. Even assuming that's done, costs of building the shelters, training and employing thousands of people to run the shelters and feeding the strays will run into thousands of crores over time. Which authority is fiscally prepared to do this? The answer is obvious. That Delhi government ministers have said they will implement these directives means little. If ministers don't realise now the impossibility of the task, they will soon do so. Third, the issue that made the SC bench take suo motu notice of this case was rabies deaths. But forcible relocation of street dogs won't solve this. It will simply engender heart-breaking cruelty. The solution is upgrading Delhi's ABC centres that are mandated to perform sterilisation and immunisation. This is doable and for authorities, budget-wise affordable. SC has in recent past reviewed its own decisions – in the Bhushan steel case and the HC judges case mentioned earlier. The directives on stray dogs is a fit case for an urgent and close second look. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email This piece appeared as an editorial opinion in the print edition of The Times of India.
