Examining Assam government’s response to SC amidst illegal detention of foreigners in ‘transit camps’: Part 1

ON January 23, 2025, the Supreme Court of India questioned the Assam government for detaining 270 foreigners at the Matia transit camp in the state without giving reasons. The Assam government had earlier changed the nomenclature of detention centres to transit camps, which serves as a great example of the usage of polysemantic language!

Affidavit of blunders

The Bench was hearing a plea concerning the deportation of persons declared foreigners and facilities at the detention centres in Assam.

The Supreme Court had given six weeks’ time to the state government on December 9, 2024 to file an affidavit and provide reasons for detaining 270 foreign nationals in the transit camp.

The court sought to know why detentions were continuing and whether there were any steps taken to initiate the process of deportation. The Assam government counsel stated the affidavit was confidential and should remain sealed, to which the Bench expressed their displeasure.

The Bench remarked, “This shows that the state does not want to come clean. Tell us what is confidential in the affidavit?”

The Assam government counsel answered that the affidavit contained the addresses of the detained foreigners, which could reach the media.

The Supreme Court Bench observed, “Assam counsel states that affidavit filed should be kept in [a] sealed envelope, as contents thereof are confidential. Though we are directing that it be kept in [a] sealed envelope, prima facie we disagree with the counsel that there is something confidential about the contents.”

The top court had earlier directed the Assam State Legal Services Authority to conduct surprise visits at the Matia transit camp for foreigners to check the facility’s hygiene and food quality.

While hearing the matter on May 16, 2024, the Supreme Court observed that the Union government must take immediate steps to deport 17 foreigners at the detention center in Matia. It said priority should be given to deport four, who had spent more than two years in the detention centre.

The plea also sought a direction to the Assam government not to detain any person declared a foreigner by the tribunal until it could show proof of a possible deportation in the near future.

The Assam government and the Union government failed to inform the Supreme Court that, given the strained nature of Indo-Bangladesh relations, expecting Dhaka’s concurrence to deport many of the detainees allegedly from Bangladesh given the parlous nature of Indo-Bangladesh relations presently is akin to climbing a glass mountain!