The recent announcement by Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma on June 7, 2025, to utilize the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950, to expedite the deportation of suspected illegal immigrants without judicial oversight has sparked significant debate. This move, described as bypassing the conventional process of Foreigners Tribunals, raises critical questions about the applicability of the 1950 law, the legality of “pushing back” individuals to another country without its consent, and the tenability of a process that sidesteps verification and the right to a fair hearing. This article examines these issues in the context of India’s legal framework, international law, and the Supreme Court’s recent observations on Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955.
The Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950: Scope and Applicability
The Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950, was enacted to address the influx of migrants into Assam in the aftermath of India’s partition. The law empowers the Central Government to order the removal of individuals who are not citizens of India and whose presence in Assam is deemed “detrimental to the interests of the general public of India or of any section thereof or of any Scheduled Tribe in Assam.” Key provisions include:
Section 2: The Central Government may direct any person to leave India if it is satisfied that their presence is prejudicial to public interest or the interests of Assam’s communities.
Section 4: The law allows for the delegation of powers to subordinate authorities, such as District Commissioners, to issue expulsion orders.
Exemptions: The Act does not apply to Indian citizens or those who entered India before the Act’s commencement unless their stay is deemed harmful.
The Act’s applicability in 2025 must be assessed in light of its original intent and subsequent legal developments. It was designed for a specific post-partition context, targeting unauthorized migration from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). However, its relevance today is reinforced by the Supreme Court’s October 2024 ruling on Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, which upheld the provision’s constitutionality and emphasized the state’s authority to identify and deport illegal immigrants who entered Assam after March 25, 1971. The Court explicitly stated that the 1950 Act should be read harmoniously with Section 6A to facilitate the identification and expulsion of such immigrants.
Despite this judicial endorsement, the Act’s broad discretionary powers raise concerns. It does not mandate a judicial process, allowing executive authorities to issue expulsion orders based on subjective assessments of “public interest.” This contrasts with the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, which require quasi-judicial adjudication by Foreigners Tribunals to determine citizenship status. The 1950 Act’s applicability is thus limited to Assam and focuses on executive-led deportation, but its use without verification or judicial oversight challenges modern legal standards.
Legality of “Pushback” Without the Receiving Country’s Permission
The Assam government’s plan to “push back” suspected foreign nationals—primarily to Bangladesh—without the receiving country’s consent raises serious legal and diplomatic issues. Under international law, deportation or refoulement (forced return) must comply with principles of sovereignty and non-refoulement, enshrined in customary international law and treaties like the 1951 Refugee Convention (though India is not a signatory).
Sovereign Consent: A state cannot unilaterally expel individuals into another country’s territory without its permission, as this violates the receiving state’s sovereignty. Bangladesh has historically agreed to accept only those immigrants who entered India after March 25, 1971, and only upon verification of their nationality. Without conclusive proof, such as passports or visas, Bangladesh is unlikely to accept deportees, potentially leaving them stateless or stranded in “no man’s land” between borders, as reported in cases like that of Islam in May 2025.
Non-Refoulement: The principle of non-refoulement prohibits returning individuals to a country where they face persecution or serious harm. While India is not bound by the Refugee Convention, its obligations under customary international law and domestic constitutional protections (Articles 14 and 21) require ensuring that deportations do not endanger individuals. The 1950 Act’s lack of verification mechanisms risks violating this principle, especially for marginalized communities who may lack documentation but have resided in India for decades.
Diplomatic Implications: Unilateral pushbacks could strain India-Bangladesh relations. The Supreme Court’s Section 6A ruling noted that ineffective implementation of deportation post-1971 has already created tensions, as Bangladesh may view India as shirking responsibility for undocumented migrants. Without bilateral agreements or verification protocols, pushbacks could escalate into a diplomatic crisis, undermining regional cooperation on border management.
The 1950 Act does not explicitly require the receiving country’s consent, reflecting its outdated framework. However, modern international norms and India’s foreign policy commitments necessitate such consent, rendering unilateral pushbacks legally untenable.
Tenability of the 1950 Act: Verification and the Right to Be Heard
The most contentious aspect of Assam’s proposed use of the 1950 Act is its circumvention of verification and the right to a fair hearing, both cornerstones of due process under Indian and international law.
Lack of Verification: The Act allows District Commissioners to issue expulsion orders without rigorous evidence of foreign nationality. This contrasts with the Foreigners Tribunals, which, despite criticisms, require documentation and testimony to establish citizenship status. The absence of verification risks misidentifying Indian citizens, particularly from marginalized communities like Bengali Muslims, as foreigners. Cases like Amina Khatun (2020) and Rahim Ali (2024) highlight how inadequate investigations have led to erroneous declarations of foreign status.
The Supreme Court’s Section 6A ruling acknowledged the inadequacy of existing mechanisms for identifying illegal immigrants, noting that Foreigners Tribunals are under-resourced and disproportionate to the task. Relying on the 1950 Act, which offers even less scrutiny, exacerbates this problem. The dissent by Justice J.B. Pardiwala in the Section 6A case criticized the provision’s lack of a “well-defined procedure” for determining residency, a flaw equally applicable to the 1950 Act.
Right to Be Heard: Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which includes due process. The Supreme Court has consistently held that even non-citizens are entitled to a fair hearing before deportation (e.g., Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, 2005). The 1950 Act’s executive-driven process, where a District Commissioner can issue an expulsion order without judicial review, violates this right. The All B.T.C. Minority Students’ Union’s petition in June 2025 alleged that Assam’s pushback policy targets poor and marginalized communities, often without legal notice or document verification, breaching Articles 14, 21, and 22.
Risk of Statelessness: The 1950 Act’s failure to verify nationality before deportation could render individuals stateless, especially if Bangladesh refuses to accept them. The Supreme Court’s Section 6A ruling cautioned that invalidating the provision could leave pre-1971 migrants stateless, a concern equally relevant to post-1971 deportations under the 1950 Act. Statelessness violates international human rights norms and India’s obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 15).
Judicial Oversight: The Supreme Court’s remark during the Section 6A hearing—that Assam is not always bound to approach the judiciary for pushbacks—appears to endorse the 1950 Act’s executive powers. However, this must be reconciled with the Court’s broader directive for “constant monitoring” of deportation processes to ensure compliance with constitutional and international standards. Bypassing Foreigners Tribunals entirely risks undermining this oversight, as highlighted by minority organizations like the All India United Democratic Front, which have accused the Assam government of targeting Muslims under the guise of deporting foreigners.
Broader Implications and Challenges
Assam’s reliance on the 1950 Act reflects the state’s frustration with the slow pace of citizenship determination, exacerbated by the National Register of Citizens (NRC) process, which excluded 19 lakh people in 2019 but remains unimplemented. Chief Minister Sarma’s claim that the NRC slowed identification efforts underscores the urgency to address illegal immigration, a politically sensitive issue in Assam. However, the 1950 Act’s implementation raises several challenges:
Discrimination Concerns:
Critics argue that the policy disproportionately targets Bengali Muslims, fostering communal tensions. The All India United Democratic Front’s memorandum to the Assam Governor in June 2025 alleged harassment of Indian Muslims under the pretext of identifying foreigners.
Administrative Overreach: Empowering District Commissioners to issue expulsion orders without judicial checks risks abuse of power. The Supreme Court’s call for judicial supervision in the Section 6A ruling suggests that such overreach could invite legal challenges.
Humanitarian Fallout:
Pushbacks without verification could lead to humanitarian crises, as seen in the case of 40 Rohingya refugees reportedly abandoned at sea by Indian authorities in 2025. The 1950 Act’s failure to account for such outcomes undermines India’s commitment to human rights.
Conflict with Other Laws:
The 1950 Act must be harmonized with the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Citizenship Act, 1955, as emphasized by the Supreme Court. Its standalone use could create legal inconsistencies, particularly with the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, which offers a different cut-off date (December 31, 2014) for non-Muslim migrants.
The Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950, remains legally applicable in Assam, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, and provides a mechanism for deporting illegal immigrants. However, its use to “push back” suspected foreign nationals without trial, verification, or the receiving country’s consent is deeply problematic. The Act’s executive-driven process violates due process guarantees under Article 21, risks statelessness, and contravenes international norms requiring sovereign consent and non-refoulement. While the Supreme Court’s Section 6A ruling supports Assam’s authority to address illegal immigration, it also underscores the need for robust mechanisms and judicial oversight, which the 1950 Act lacks.
To align with constitutional and international standards, Assam must reform its deportation process by strengthening Verification: Establish clear criteria and documentation requirements to distinguish citizens from non-citizens, reducing the risk of error
Ensuring Due Process: Mandate hearings before impartial tribunals, even if expedited, to uphold the right to be heard;
Securing Bilateral Agreements: Negotiate with Bangladesh to ensure deportations are consensual and verified, preventing statelessness.
Judicial Supervision: Implement the Supreme Court’s directive for court-monitored deportation to prevent administrative abuse.
Without these reforms, the 1950 Act’s implementation could unleash a “Pandora’s box” of legal, humanitarian, and diplomatic challenges, undermining Assam’s efforts to address illegal immigration while respecting fundamental rights.
