Assam’s immigration detention regime is not just a threat to the liberty and well-being of those caught up within it; it also raises important questions of constitutional principles.

Indefinite Detention of Non-Citizens in India

• Under the National Security Act, 1980 and Foreigners Act, 1946, non-citizens in India can face prolonged detention, often without a clear legal purpose or timeline.

Assam NRC Crisis

• Exclusion from the NRC: In Assam, 19 lakh people were excluded from the National Register of Citizens (NRC).
• Unjustified Foreigners Declaration: Many were declared foreigners despite lifelong residence in India and lack of ties abroad.
• Unreasonable Documentation Demands: Pre-1971 proof requirements were unreasonable, especially in flood-prone areas, with minor errors in names leading to rejection.

Arising Concerns

• Legal Challenges:
  • Supreme Court Challenge: In Rajubala Das v Union of India (2020), India’s Supreme Court was asked to assess the constitutionality of indefinite detention.
  • Global Precedent – Australia’s High Court: In Australia, the High Court ruled in NZYQ (2023) that non-citizens cannot be detained without a realistic prospect of deportation — a principle grounded in constitutional limits on liberty.
• Violation of Legal Principles:
  • Legal Basis for Deprivation of Liberty: Indian law ties deprivation of liberty to judicial power, criminal conviction, or lawful preventive detention (under Article 22).
  • Indefinite Detention in Assam: Assam’s detainees are not charged, not convicted, and not removable — yet remain in detention camps.
• Lack of Deportation Mechanism:
  • Ineffective Deportation: Since 2017, only 26 foreigners have been deported from Assam, out of over 1.59 lakh declared.
  • Deportation Impossibility: Many have no other country willing to accept them — making removal impossible.
• No Legitimate Detention Purpose:
  • Lack of Legitimate Detention Purpose: Detention is not punishment, not preventive, and not for deportation.
  • Violation of Constitutional Rights: It thus violates Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees protection of life and personal liberty.
• Humanitarian & Ethical Concerns:
  • Old, poor, and innocent people jailed without crime.
  • Denied basic dignity, legal aid & recognition.
  • No time limit – families separated indefinitely.
  • Ethical dilemma: State vs individual liberty.
  • Raises questions on constitutional morality & human rights.

Constitutional Implications

• Undermining Judicial Authority: The executive’s control over detention undermines the judiciary’s traditional role.
• Threat to Rule of Law: This poses a serious threat to the rule of law and constitutional governance.

Conclusion

The indefinite detention of non-citizens in Assam violates Article 21, undermines the rule of law, and raises serious constitutional concerns. Reforms and judicial oversight are essential to restore justice and protect fundamental rights.

DOWNLOAD PDF