330 deported to Bangladesh: Himanta cites 1950 law to say District Collectors can push ‘foreigners’ back
Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma has announced a major crackdown on illegal immigration. He confirmed that 330 suspected foreigners have been deported—mostly to Bangladesh—without going through the usual Foreigners Tribunal process.
Instead of legal proceedings, the state used the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950. This move allows district collectors to identify and deport foreigners on the spot. Sarma says the process is faster, clearer, and more efficient than using tribunals.
What is the 1950 Expulsion Act?
The Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 was created shortly after India’s independence. It gave the government power to expel anyone whose presence in Assam could harm public order or local interests.
Over time, the government began relying on the Foreigners Act (1946) and Foreigners Tribunals (1964) to handle such cases. These frameworks offered legal hearings before declaring someone a foreigner.
But Sarma now argues that the Supreme Court’s October 2024 ruling confirms the 1950 Act is still valid. This gives state officials the right to act independently without involving tribunals.
Sarma’s Justification: Speed Over Bureaucracy
In the Assembly, Sarma said the tribunal process is slow and often ineffective. Many cases stay unresolved for years. “We can’t wait while illegal immigrants live freely,” he said.
Under the revived 1950 law, deputy commissioners can now decide if someone is likely a foreigner and deport them immediately. This change removes the long wait for tribunal verdicts and reduces paperwork.
Political Opposition and Legal Warnings
Opposition parties have strongly criticized this approach. Congress members say that skipping the tribunal process can lead to wrongful deportation, especially in Assam where many people lack proper documents.
Some warn that this move targets Bengali-speaking communities, creating fear among genuine Indian citizens. “There’s a risk of punishing the innocent,” said a senior Congress leader.
Activists worry that executive orders, without court review, can result in serious human rights violations. They demand clearer checks to avoid such mistakes.
A Law with a Troubled Past
When first introduced, the 1950 Act led to protests across Assam. Authorities ordered even Indian citizens to leave, sparking a national debate. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru criticized the law and stopped its active use.
Reviving this law now raises new concerns. Why return to a law that caused major problems in the past? Legal experts question whether this move respects current constitutional values.
Global and Legal Repercussions
India shares a porous border with Bangladesh. While deportations sound simple in theory, they often need Bangladesh’s cooperation. In practice, “pushbacks” may violate international standards if done without verifying a person’s nationality.
Reports suggest that many deported individuals returned within days, highlighting the border’s weak enforcement and the method’s ineffectiveness.
Legal experts say this process might violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality and protection of life and liberty. Without a fair hearing, the chances of wrongful expulsion increase sharply.
Public Reaction: Mixed Opinions
In Assam, many locals support the move. They believe illegal immigration threatens local culture and resources. For them, Sarma’s approach looks strong and decisive.
However, civil rights groups and legal scholars remain worried. They argue that rushing to deport people without full checks can cause long-term harm to India’s democracy and image.
Final Thoughts: Fast Doesn’t Mean Fair
Assam’s recent decision to deport 330 people using the 1950 Act reflects a bold policy shift. The move may be fast and popular with some voters, but it raises deep questions about fairness, rights, and legal process.
Quick decisions without proper review risk turning administrative efficiency into injustice. India must strike a balance between protecting its borders and upholding the rights of every individual—especially the vulnerable.
