13 Bangladeshi Nationals Deported; Verification Ongoing For Others : Assam Govt Informs Supreme Court

The Supreme Court was informed on Friday (March 21) that 13 out of 63 Bangladeshi nationals detained in Assam's Matia transit camp have been deported.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan recorded this statement from Assam's affidavit in a case concerning the detention and deportation of foreigners in Assam.

“It is pointed out that on the basis of document at Annexure 'B' that out of the list which is referred in our order dated 4th February, 2025, 13 Bangladeshi Nationals have been deported to Bangladesh”, the Court recorded in its order.

On February 4, 2025, the Court had questioned the lack of action concerning 63 individuals in the transit camps whose nationality was confirmed.

On Friday, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta further told the Court that verification process of the other detainees is ongoing with the Bangladeshi High Commission.

An affidavit filed by the Assam government included a chart showing that in most cases, nationality status verification (NSV) forms had been sent to the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) on February 14, 2025, with reminders issued on the same day. The deportation of 13 Bangladeshi nationals was confirmed through a handing over and taking over note, annexed to the affidavit.

The Court directed the Assam government to file another affidavit by April 30, 2025, detailing the status of the NSVs and any further deportations. The matter will be heard next on May 6, 2025.

Another key issue before the Court is the fate of individuals whose nationality remains undetermined. The bench had earlier directed the Union of India to explain how it plans to deal with those declared as foreigners by the Foreigners Tribunals but whose nationalities are unknown. On Friday, the Court granted the centre time until the end of April 2025 to submit its response, which will also be considered on May 6, 2025.

Background

On February 4, 2025, the Court reprimanded the Assam government for failing to initiate the deportation process for individuals whose nationalities were known.

Expressing dissatisfaction with the state's explanation that the detainees' foreign addresses were not available, Justice Oka remarked that the state could deport such individuals to the capital city of the respective country. He criticized the state's inaction, emphasizing that indefinite detention without taking further steps was unacceptable.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat highlighted that deportations were stalled because authorities only determined that individuals were not Indian citizens, without confirming their actual nationality. Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves further argued that Bangladesh was refusing to accept certain individuals as its citizens, leaving them effectively stateless and in prolonged detention.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta noted that there were categories of individuals: those whose nationality was established and those whose nationality remained uncertain. While the Court noted that there was no difficulty in deporting individuals in the first category, it directed the Union to clarify its approach towards the second category.

Case no. – Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 234/2020

Case Title – Rajubala Das v. Union of India and Anr.