The Supreme Court’s recent censure of the Assam government over its handling of detention centres for declared foreigners has laid bare the systemic inertia plaguing the state’s deportation process. In a scathing rebuke, the apex court admonished the Assam administration for indefinitely detaining individuals instead of initiating immediate deportation proceedings. A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan questioned the state’s logic behind withholding nationality verification forms and delaying the deportation of individuals whose citizenship had already been determined. The court’s stern remarks—asking if the Assam government was waiting for a “muhurat” to act—highlighted the lack of urgency and accountability in addressing the plight of these detainees. The government’s argument that deportation could not be executed due to the unavailability of foreign addresses was categorically dismissed by the bench, which noted that such an excuse was untenable. The Supreme Court has now directed the state to take immediate steps to deport 63 individuals whose nationality is known and submit a compliance affidavit within two weeks. This intervention underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring that constitutional protections, particularly under Article 21, are not trampled upon under the pretext of bureaucratic inefficiency.
The Assam government’s failure to act decisively in these cases reflects a broader governance failure in handling issues of immigration and citizenship. The prolonged detention of individuals, some of whom have been confined for over a decade, is not merely an administrative lapse but a stark violation of human rights. The government’s inaction, coupled with diplomatic roadblocks, has effectively rendered these individuals stateless—unclaimed by any nation, yet indefinitely incarcerated. Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves’s submission that Bangladesh has refused to accept detainees as its citizens adds a layer of complexity to the issue, as these individuals remain trapped in a legal and humanitarian limbo. The state’s refusal to deport detainees without known addresses was met with sharp criticism from the court, which pointed out that even without precise addresses, deportation to a foreign country’s capital was a logical next step. This judicial intervention has made it clear that detention cannot be a substitute for deportation, nor can indefinite incarceration be justified under the guise of administrative challenges. The Supreme Court’s insistence on immediate action suggests that continued inaction by the Assam government could invite more stringent judicial scrutiny in the coming weeks.
The larger question that emerges from this legal battle is how India intends to handle cases of individuals whose citizenship status remains undetermined. While deportation is the logical and legal step for those declared as foreigners, the reality on the ground is fraught with complications, particularly when the receiving nation refuses to accept deportees. The case of Rohingya detainees, who are caught in a diplomatic deadlock with no clear resolution in sight, is emblematic of this challenge. The Supreme Court’s directive to the Centre to furnish details on past deportations and formulate a clear strategy for those with unknown nationalities is a crucial step toward addressing these issues systematically. Neither the Assam government nor the central government can afford to let this issue stagnate any further. The state’s failure to act decisively not only burdens the exchequer but also raises fundamental questions about India’s adherence to constitutional and humanitarian principles. The Supreme Court’s intervention must be seen as a decisive push for accountability and action—one that the Assam government must heed with the seriousness it warrants. The court has drawn a firm line; the government must now step up and act before further judicial reprimand becomes necessary.