Guwahati, June 28: The Gauhati High Court on Friday took up a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the Assam government’s controversial pushback policy to deport suspected illegal immigrants without referring their cases to the Foreigners Tribunals.
The PIL, filed by the All BTC Minority Students Union (ABMSU), alleges that the state has been arbitrarily picking up individuals on mere suspicion and pushing them back across the border, bypassing legal procedures. A division bench comprising Justice Manish Choudhury and Justice Mitali Thakuria heard the matter and fixed July 22 as the next date of hearing.
ABMSU’s petition voices strong opposition to what it describes as years of harassment of genuine Indian citizens in the name of illegal immigration checks. The organization argued that the law mandates a clear process involving detection, detention, and adjudication by Foreigners Tribunals, and accused the government of violating these protocols.
The union pointed out that the Supreme Court, in multiple orders, has stressed the importance of following due process in deportation cases. However, the petitioner claims that following the Supreme Court’s February 4, 2025 directive—ordering the deportation of 63 individuals declared foreigners—the state misinterpreted the ruling and began pushing back people not listed among the 63, including those whose citizenship status is still under legal consideration.
Senior advocate S. Hegde appeared for the petitioner virtually, assisted by advocate A.R. Bhuyan. Advocate General D. Saikia, assisted by Additional Advocate General B. Gogoi, represented the state.
Bhuyan informed the court that he had obtained a list of individuals subjected to the alleged pushback operations. He noted that while these individuals were earlier located on Indian soil, their current whereabouts are unknown. Bhuyan stated he would file an additional affidavit with the names and details of the affected persons by July 14.
On behalf of the state, Advocate General Saikia raised preliminary objections on the maintainability of the PIL.
The division bench scheduled the matter for further hearing on July 22, allowing time for both parties to file necessary submissions.
