The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed displeasure over thousands of illegal migrants being kept in detention centres for years in Assam, and gave the Centre and the state two weeks to work out an effective mechanism to repatriate them.
“Don’t you think some explanation is called from the state government as to why these people are detained for such a long period? Many of them have been detained for the last nine-ten years. What is the justification?” a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi asked solicitor general Tushar Mehta.
Mehta, who was appearing for the Centre and the Assam government, said there was need for quickly evolving a mechanism for repatriation. He explained the nitty-gritty in verifying the nationality of the illegal immigrants before deporting them.
But the bench, comprising also justices L Nageswara Rao and Sanjiv Khanna, raised several issues. Referring to a government affidavit, the court said over 50,000 people had been declared foreigners in the last decade but only 166 had been deported. It then spoke of the draft National Register for Citizens in Assam and said nearly 40 lakh people had found their names missing.
“We have not sent these 40 lakh cases to the tribunals to determine whether they are foreign migrants or not. But what have you done in so many years? You say you have pushed back 29,000. How are you so sure that they have gone? And now you have evolved a regime where the MHA [ministry of home affairs] and MEA [ministry of external affairs] will have to take the consent of the country of origin. Which country would give you that? You had so many alternatives such as to grant refugee status. Why haven’t you done it
in so many years?” the court asked.
“We have not sent these 40 lakh cases to the tribunals to determine whether they are foreign migrants or not. But what have you done in so many years? You say you have pushed back 29,000. How are you so sure that they have gone? And now you have evolved a regime where the MHA [ministry of home affairs] and MEA [ministry of external affairs] will have to take the consent of the country of origin. Which country would give you that? You had so many alternatives such as to grant refugee status. Why haven’t you done it
in so many years?” the court asked.
Mehta sought two weeks to address the court’s concerns. The court then posted the matter for hearing on March 13.