
The Supreme Court on Tuesday sharply criticised the Assam government for its failure to deport illegal immigrants, who had been declared foreigners, and for continuing to detain them in camps.
Justices A.S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, while hearing the case, questioned the state’s argument that deportations could not proceed because the addresses of these immigrants were not known.
The court ordered the Assam government to immediately begin the deportation process for 63 individuals whose nationality was confirmed and to submit a status report within two weeks. Justice Oka directly addressed Assam’s Chief Secretary, Ravi Kota, stating, “Why should it be our concern that their addresses are unknown? You can deport them to their home country. Are you waiting for an auspicious time?” Justice Oka emphasized that deportation could be carried out even without knowing the specific address of the immigrants, as long as their nationality was established.
The court reacted strongly to the state’s position, with Justice Oka commenting, “Foreign address not divulged—is that the reason for not deporting them? You cannot continue to detain them indefinitely. Once they are declared foreigners, they should be deported immediately. You already know their citizenship status, so why wait for an address?” Justice Oka further pointed out that it was the responsibility of the other country to decide where these individuals should go.
The Assam government’s counsel raised concerns about the deportation process without the detainees’ addresses, asking, “Where do we deport them to without an address?”
Justice Oka responded, “Send them to the capital city of the respective country. How difficult is that? If someone is from Pakistan, you know its capital.” He questioned how the state could justify holding detainees without addresses, noting that the address of foreign nationals would never be available.
Justice Bhuyan also chimed in, stating, “Once a person is declared a foreigner, you must take the next logical step. You cannot detain them forever. Article 21 guarantees the right to life and liberty.” The judge pointed out that the state had numerous foreigner detention centres, asking, “How many of them have been deported?”
In response, Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, representing one of the detainees, explained that the state only identifies individuals as foreigners but does not determine their nationality, creating confusion in the deportation process.
Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, representing the petitioner, added that Bangladesh had refused to accept these individuals, leaving them homeless.
Justice Oka accused the state of “suppressing facts” and questioned why the state had not provided a date for the verification of the detainees’ identities. He rejected the state’s request for more time to file a corrected affidavit, stating, “The last opportunity was already given.” The court warned that it would issue a perjury notice if the state failed to comply.
Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, apologised on behalf of the Assam government, stating that he had spoken with the state’s highest authorities.
He assured the court that he would coordinate with the Ministry of External Affairs to address the issue, explaining that deportation is a central matter and needs diplomatic intervention.
In its order, the court reiterated that if the nationality of the detainees was known, there was no reason to delay deportation. It directed the Assam government to immediately begin the deportation process for the 63 individuals and to file an updated affidavit within two weeks.
The court also mandated the proper maintenance of detention centres and asked the Centre to provide details on the number of deportations conducted so far, as well as its plans for handling cases where the nationality of foreigners remains undetermined.