The Supreme Court of India on February 4 strongly criticized the State of Assam for failing to take steps to deport individuals declared as foreigners and for keeping them in detention centers indefinitely. The Court rejected Assam’s justification that deportation was delayed due to the lack of foreign addresses for the detained individuals.
A Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan directed the State to immediately initiate the deportation process for 63 individuals whose nationality is known and submit a status report within two weeks. Expressing dissatisfaction with the State’s affidavit, the Bench termed it “per se defective.”
Court’s Observations on Deportation Delay
Justice Oka, addressing Assam’s Chief Secretary Dr. Ravi Kota, who appeared virtually, questioned the delay in deportation:
“You have refused to start deportation saying their addresses are not known. Why should that be our concern? You know their nationality, deport them to their country. Are you waiting for some muhurat (auspicious time)?”
Justice Bhuyan further emphasized the Article 21 rights of detainees, stating:
“Once you declare a person as a foreigner, you must take the next logical step. You cannot detain them indefinitely. How many foreigners have been deported so far?”
State’s Justification and Court’s Response
The State Counsel attempted to justify the delay by arguing that without a known foreign address, deportation was not feasible. Justice Oka dismissed this argument, stating:
“You deport them to the capital city of their country. If the person is from Pakistan, you know its capital. How can you detain them indefinitely just because their exact address is unknown?”
Issue of Stateless Persons
Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, representing the petitioner, submitted that Bangladesh has been refusing to accept these individuals as its citizens, leading to their indefinite detention. He argued that:
• India has declared them non-citizens.
• Bangladesh refuses to recognize them as Bangladeshis.
• As a result, they have effectively become stateless and have been detained for over a decade.
Gonsalves urged the Union and State to disclose the diplomatic efforts being made to resolve this issue.
Solicitor General’s Assurance
At this stage, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta entered appearance and acknowledged the deficiencies in the State’s affidavit. He assured the Court that he would consult with the highest authorities in the executive and place all necessary details before the Bench.
“Your lordship’s concerns are well received. I will sit with the concerned officers and file consolidated documents,” SG Mehta stated.
Justice Oka responded by pointing out the financial burden on the State exchequer, observing that Assam has been spending public funds on the prolonged detention of these individuals.
Court’s Directives
1. Immediate Deportation: Assam must initiate deportation proceedings for 63 individuals whose nationality is known and file a compliance affidavit within two weeks.
2. Verification & Follow-ups: The State must issue reminders to the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) for pending nationality verifications and take further action accordingly.
3. Detention Center Conditions: Assam must ensure proper facilities in detention centers and constitute a committee of officers to conduct fortnightly inspections.
4. Union Government’s Role: The Union Government must submit details regarding:
• The number of individuals deported so far.
• The strategy for handling detainees whose nationality remains unverified.
The matter is scheduled for further hearing on February 25.
Case Details
• Case Title: Rajubala Das v. Union of India & Anr., Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 234/2020
• Appearances:
• For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves
• For Applicant (Detainee in Detention Center): Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat
• For State of Assam: State Counsel
• For Union of India: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta
