Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma said on Saturday that the state government is searching for the possibility of “pushing” in Bangladesh without going through the current process of identity through foreign tribunals.
To support this, he cited a 1950 law, which was issued before the institution of tribunals of foreigners in the state. He said that the Supreme Court, while hearing the question of the validity of section 6A of the Citizenship Act, said that this law is still applicable.
“When the Supreme Court raised the case of Claus 6A of the Citizenship Act, it was under a constitutional bench. The bench mentioned that … the Assam government does not need to reach the judiciary in case of identification of foreigners. There is no need to reach the inactivity order. The immigrants are called inactivity orders. Our lawyers were not brought to notice, and we did not know about it.
Last week, Sarma confirmed that the state was carrying out the “push back” of people who declared foreigners by the tribunal of foreigners by implementing an order of the Supreme Court on 4 February. The apex court had pulled the state not to initiate the process of deportation of foreigners lodged at the Matia Detention Center. Along with civil groups, sections of opposition parties have argued that these “push back” violate the procedures of exile.
On Saturday, Sarma said, “The pushback will continue and the process of identifying foreigners, which stopped due to NRC (national register of citizens), will spread again. And this time, if someone is identified as a foreigner, we will not send them to a tribunal; we will just push them back. Preparations are going on for them.”
The tribunals of foreigners are semi-judicial bodies that determine whether a person presents to them, usually referred to by the Border Police or who are listed as ‘de-Voters’ in the electoral rolls, is an “foreign” or an Indian citizen. Those who declare foreigners by these tribunals have the option to appeal against the order by reaching the Gauhati High Court and the Supreme Court.
,
