Surviving Migration Detention in Assam

BETWEEN FEAR AND HATRED:
SURVIVING MIGRATION DETENTION
IN ASSAM
NCR REPORT_07.indd 1 11/22/2018 6:40:20 PM

First published in 2018 by
Amnesty India
#235, 13th Cross, Indira Nagar, 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru – 560038, Karnataka, India
© Amnesty India
Original language: English
Printed by Amnesty India.
Except where otherwise noted, content in this document is licensed under a Creative Commons
(attribution, non-commercial, no derivatives, international 4.0) licence.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode
Where material is attributed to a copyright owner other than Amnesty India, this material is not
subject to the Creative
Commons licence.
Cover Photo: Getty images
Sketches: Priya Kuriyan
Designer: Mohammed Sajjad
Amnesty India is part of the Amnesty International global human rights movement. Amnesty
India seeks to protect and promote the human rights of everyone in India. Our vision is for every
person in India to enjoy all the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
other international human rights standards and the Constitution of India. We are independent
of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion, and are funded mainly by
contributions from individual supporters.

3
CONTENTS
Overview 04
The Citizenship Issue in Assam 08
Foreigners Tribunal Processes 11
Detention and Deportation 14
Conditions of Detention 18
Conclusions and Recommendations 24
BETWEEN FEAR AND HATRED: SURVIVING MIGRATION DETENTION IN ASSAM 3

4
OVERVIEW
As on 25 September 2018, there are 1,037 people detained
for being ‘irregular foreigners’1
in detention centres housed
inside prisons in the Indian state of Assam2
. Many do not know
what crimes have led to their incarceration. Most of them do
not know what the future holds. Some of them have appealed
against official decisions deeming them ‘irregular foreigners’.
There is no statutory limit on the period of detention. Some
have been in custody for many months, and some for years
without access to parole.
Moreover, there is no system by which their detention is peri-
odically reviewed. These individuals are not segregated from
convicts and undertrial prisoners, who are also housed in the
same prison facilities. They have limited contact with their fam-
ilies. Some are even separated from family members who are
also being held in detention in other centers. There are children
who grow up with their mothers inside prison. Many detainees
suffer from mental and physical health issues associated with
the conditions of their detention. Healthcare services are inade-
quate, and there are few avenues for recreation.
International human rights law requires that detention in con-
nection with migration must only be used as a last resort, when
lawful, necessary and proportionate. Yet, detention has become
a default option in Assam. This briefing examines the use of
detention for persons declared as ‘irregular foreigners’. It shows
how the detention is routinely used and explores its impact on
detainees and their families.
AMNESTY INDIA FOUND THAT:
– There is no statutory limit on the period for which individuals
declared as ‘irregular foreigners’ can be detained.
– Individuals declared as ‘irregular foreigners’ are kept inside
criminal prisons along with convicts and undertrial prisoners.
– The circumstances and conditions of detention cause harm to
individuals’ mental and physical health.
– The Foreigners Tribunals, which adjudicate citizenship cases,
follow flawed processes to identify ‘irregular foreigners’.
A security personal stands guard as residents stand in a queue to check their names
on the final list of National Register of Citizens (NRC) at a NRC Sewa Kendra (NSK)
in Burgoan village in Morigoan district. Getty images
4 BETWEEN FEAR AND HATRED: SURVIVING MIGRATION DETENTION IN ASSAM

5
METHODOLOGY
Empirical data was gathered through semi-structured interviews
with key stakeholders and informants including six individuals
who had been formerly detained, and families of seven
individuals who had been or are in detention.
Amnesty India researchers interviewed two persons who visited
detention centres as part of a mission conducted by the
National Human Rights Commission, two doctors who have
worked in detention centres, three academicians working on
the political economy of Assam and representatives of three
civil society organisations in Assam who work on land rights,
minority rights and corruption.
Amnesty India researchers also surveyed the process of
declaring persons as ‘irregular foreigners’. This included an
examination of orders of the Foreigners Tribunals and the
Supreme Court.
The researchers also analysed 167 appellate judgments of the
Gauhati High Court. The researchers interviewed five lawyers
who practice in the Foreigners Tribunals in Assam, two High
Court lawyers and a former member of a Foreigners Tribunal.

6
A resident holds documents on his way to
check their names on the final list of NRC
at a NRC Sewa Kendra in Morigaon district.
Getty images

7

8
CHAPTER 1 - THE CITIZENSHIP ISSUE IN ASSAM
EARLY HISTORY
For over a century, the issue of citizenship and belonging has
been a much contested one in Assam. In 1949, during India’s
Constituent Assembly debate on citizenship, Rohini Kumar
Chaudhari from Assam raised the specific issue of migration of
people from East Bengal (also formerly known as East Pakistan;
present-day Bangladesh) into Assam and suggested that permits
be issued to such persons.3
However in its final form, the
Indian Constitution did not contain this provision and created
a rudimentary framework for citizenship based on domicile and
birth.4
Articles 6 and 7 dealt with those who had come from
the territories that had become Pakistan by 19 July 1948. The
Indian Parliament was entrusted the responsibility of working
out the finer details.5
The Citizenship Act, 1955 contained a more detailed
elucidation of Indian citizenship. It provided that
– A person born in India after 26 January 1950 would,
subject to certain exceptions, be a citizen of India.
– Anyone born outside India after 26 January 1950, subject
to certain requirements, would be a citizen of India if their
father was an Indian citizen at the time of his/her birth.
– Under certain conditions, certain category of persons could
acquire Indian citizenship by registration in the prescribed
manner.
– Foreigners could acquire Indian citizenship on application
for naturalization on certain conditions.
– If any territory became part of India, the Government of
India could by order specify the persons who would become
citizens of India as a result thereof.
– Citizenship could be lost by termination, renunciation or
deprivation on certain grounds.
– A citizen of a Commonwealth country would have the status
of commonwealth citizen of India based on reciprocity.
The Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 was
enacted to assuage the anxieties of the people of Assam about
the migration of Bengalis into the state. Under this law, the
Indian government could order the removal of any person or
class of persons who had come into Assam and whose stay in
Assam was “detrimental to the interests of the general public
of India or of any section thereof or of any Scheduled Tribe
in Assam”. In 1964, the Assam state government passed the
Prevention of Infiltration from Pakistan Act. A special security
force known as the Border Police was created under this Act
comprising about 2000 personnel.6
Additionally the Foreigners
Act, 1946 was applied to regulate the entry of foreigners into
India. Foreigners Tribunals were set up under this law, again
in 1964, to detect “whether a person is or is not a foreigner
within the meaning of the Foreigners Act 1946”.
ANTI-FOREIGNER AGITATION
In 1971, after the Bangladesh war of independence, there
was a huge influx of refugees from what was East Pakistan
into India.7
This resulted in ethnic tensions, which provided
a basis for a widespread anti-foreigner movement in Assam
known as the ‘Assam Agitation’. The agitation, led by the All
Assam Students Union (AASU), went on from 1979 to 1985.
It demanded the “detection” of all foreigners, their deletion
from the voters’ lists, and their deportation. The agitation was
based on the fear that the growing immigrant populations were
a burden on the resources of the state and would make the
people of Assam a minority in their own land. The agitators
refused to recognise the authority of elected representatives
and accused politicians of using these “irregular migrants” as
“vote banks” to win elections.8
The agitators also wanted the
state to use the National Register of Citizens, 1951, which was
based on the census data of the same year, to determine the
citizenship of all those residing in the state.9
855 Assamese
protesters died in the agitation.10
THE FOLLOWING PERSONS ARE ELIGIBLE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE NATIONAL
REGISTER OF CITIZENS (NRC)
– Persons whose names appear in NRC, 1951.
– Persons whose names appear in any of the electoral rolls up to 24 March (midnight), 1971.
– Descendants of the above persons.
– Persons who came to Assam on or after 1 January 1966 but before 25 March 1971 and registered themselves in accordance with the
rules made by the Central Government with the Foreigners Registration Regional Officer (FRRO) and who have not been declared as
‘illegal migrants’ or foreigners by the competent authority.
– Persons who are original inhabitants of Assam and their children and descendants who are citizens of India, provided the citizenship of
such persons is ascertained beyond reasonable doubt by the registering authority.

9
The most violent manifestation of anti-foreigner sentiments
was the Nellie massacre. On 18 February 1983, 1,819
people, mostly Muslim peasants of Bengali origin, were
attacked and killed in and around Nellie in Nagaon district of
Assam.11
Chargesheets were filed only in 299 of the 688 First
Information Reports (FIRs) registered. None of those against
whom charges were filed, were ever prosecuted.12
The Assam Agitation ended with the signing of the Assam
Accord. This accord was signed between the AASU, the Indian
government and the Assam state government. Some of the key
provisions of the Accord related to securing the international
border between India and Bangladesh, including, by building
a wall and barbed wire fencing; and ‘detection’ and expulsion
of foreigners who entered Assam on or after 25 March 1971.13
In 1985, Prafulla Mahanta, the 33-year old leader of this
agitation, became India’s youngest Chief Minister, riding on the
wave of support created by the Assam Agitation.
Section 6A was added to the Citizenship Act to give effect to
the Assam Accord in 1985.14
It carved out special provisions
to determine Indian citizenship, applicable only to Assam. It
created three categories for those who came into Assam from
Bangladesh:
1. Those who came into the state before 1966 were
considered Indian citizens;
2. Those who came into the state between 1966 and 25
March 1971 were to be taken off the electoral rolls, and
regularised after ten years; and
3. Those who came into the state on or after 25 March 1971
were to be ‘detected’ and expelled in accordance with law.
The constitutionality of Section 6A is being challenged before
the Indian Supreme Court because it creates a different rule for
Indian citizenship for Assam from what is applicable in the rest
of India.15
People wait to check their names on the first draft of the National Register of Citizens
(NRC) at Goroimari of Kamrup district in Assam. Getty images

10
THE SEARCH FOR ‘FOREIGNERS’
Since 1983, people suspected of being ‘illegal migrants’ were
tried under the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunal) Act,
1983 (IMDT Act), a legislation that was enacted as a response
to the Assam Agitation. The IMDT Act defined an ‘illegal
migrant’ as
– a person who entered India on or after 25 March 1971
– a foreigner
– or someone who has entered India without valid
documentation.
The burden of proving a person’s citizenship was placed on the
person or state agency who was accusing someone of being an
‘irregular foreigner’.16
The IMDT Act was challenged before
the Indian Supreme Court in Sarbananda Sonowal vs Union of
India. It was struck down, in 2005, as being too lenient. The
Supreme Court relied on a 1998 report by the then Governor
of Assam S.K. Sinha, to conclude that there was a large-scale
influx of Bangladeshi migrants into Assam, which the IMDT
Act had failed to check.17
The Court held that the Act, by
placing the burden of proof upon the state rather than upon
the ‘illegal migrant’, and its rigorous procedural requirements,
was inadequate to deal with the problem of irregular migration.
It was felt that proceedings under the Act invariably ended in
favour of the person accused of being an ‘illegal migrant’.18
After this judgment, the Tribunals under the IMDT stopped
functioning. From 2005 onwards, all determinations of
citizenship in Assam were done under the Foreigners Act, 1946
by Foreigners Tribunals.
Prior to this, in July 1997, another process began to identify
‘irregular foreigners” in Assam. The Election Commission
of India issued a circular to the Assam state government to
identify ‘doubtful’ voters and mark them as ‘D’ in the electoral
rolls. If the Election Commission was not satisfied with their
identity documents, these ‘D’ voters were asked to prove their
citizenship by producing valid documents before a Foreigners
Tribunal.19
There are 100 Foreigners Tribunals in Assam, of
which 64 were set up in 2015.20
Under the provisions of the
Foreigners Act, 1946, persons unable to prove their Indian
citizenship, and are thus declared ‘foreigner’, may be detained
or confined. Such detention is in detention centers which are
typically within prison premises.
CITIZENSHIP DETERMINATION
UNDER THE NATIONAL REGISTER
OF CITIZENS (NRC)
The Indian government led by then Prime Minister Indira
Gandhi had a series of discussions with the AASU starting in
1980, on the modalities of identifying ‘irregular foreigners’
in the state. The AASU insisted that the National Register of
Citizens 1951 (NRC 1951) should be treated as the base for
identifying ‘irregular foreigners’. NRC 1951 was a register of
With the NRC, the bridge between the various communities in
Assam, the “dolong” which we had, they are trying to break it
down once again. The Indian government wishes to get rid of the
‘illegal immigrants’ in Assam through this act…but this has also
led to strain between the Assamese, the Bengali Hindus living in
Assam, and the Bengali Muslims living in Assam. It is bringing
back the climate of the Assam Agitation of 1979-1985…pitting
Assamese against Bengali, Hindu against Muslim and so on…this
is indeed a very volatile situation and a critical juncture.
– Akhil Gogoi, General Secretary, Krishak Mukti Sangram Samiti
Indian citizens, first created in 1951, based on the census of
the same year.
On 17 December 2014, the Supreme Court ordered in Assam
Sanmilita Mahasangha vs. Union of India that NRC 1951 had
to be updated for Assam by January 2016. The Court directed
the Indian government and the Assam state government to
‘detect’ and deport all ‘illegal migrants’ who have come into
Assam after 25 March 1971. The Court also directed the Indian
government to hold talks with the government of Bangladesh
to streamline the process of deportation of those found to have
irregularly migrated from Bangladesh.21
Although what was central to the anti-foreigner struggle was the
identification and expulsion of ‘irregular foreigners’, a process
which involved updating the NRC 1951, the data in the NRC
itself is under a cloud of suspicion. NRC 1951 was based on
the Indian Census of 1951, an exercise that has come under
severe criticism from several quarters for the process through
which it was carried out. Information was collected from
village officials through ill-trained enumerators. Individuals
were categorized according to households, thereby opening the
possibility of misrepresentation or even under-representation of
all the members of a particular household.22
These enumerators
did not go to the remotest parts of the state, for instance the
char areas (river islands). Most of the people living in these
parts are Muslim.23
If a person‘s name was omitted in the 1951
census, then their name was also excluded from the NRC. As
the NRC was not a public document, a person would not even
know if his name was included and there was no opportunity
to get the mistake rectified.24
At the time, people would not
have contemplated that exclusion from NRC 1951 would have
consequences for them and their descendants 68 years hence.
After many delays and extensions from the Supreme Court,
on 30 July 2018 the ‘final draft’ list of the historic and
controversial National Register of Citizens (NRC) was published
by the Assam state government. Around four million people
were left out of this list.25
The people who have been excluded
will be given a chance to file objections. People whose names
did not appear in the final draft can file claims and objections
till 15 December 2018.26
It is unclear what will happen to those excluded from the final
NRC list. The government of Bangladesh has stated that the
Indian Prime Minister has assured them that the people left out
of the NRC list will not be deported to Bangladesh.27
Recently,
the Assam state government has sanctioned Rs. 4.6 billion for
the construction of a new standalone detention centre for persons
declared as ‘irregular foreigners” with a capacity of 3000.28

11
FOREIGNERS TRIBUNAL
PROCEEDING:
“There are many [Foreigners] Tribunals where government
advocates should be present but they are not there. In some
cases where there are government advocates, Tribunal members
dictate to government advocates on how to cross examine and the
process is not neutral. Tribunals are a quasi-judicial system. It is
neither entirely civil nor criminal. Very rarely are the proceedings
fair. They [Tribunal members] do whatever they want.”
– Lawyer practising in the Foreigners Tribunal
“The Foreigners Tribunal Members ask the accused, ‘Do you
know what’s written here?’ (Pointing to the written evidence
submitted to the Tribunal in English) If the person says yes, then
the FT member asks, ‘Tell us what is written in this paragraph?’
If the accused replies, ‘I don’t know English’, the Foreigners
Tribunal member writes, ‘The accused is saying he doesn’t know’.
All of this is done to put the accused in a spot.”
“Most clients are very poor and illiterate. They approach people
in villages and since they are not well aware of the system it
becomes difficult to navigate it. Getting hold of old voter lists is
difficult. Administration also often doesn’t help. Or go beyond their
way to help a genuine citizen. Middlemen are also there exploiting
people.”
CHAPTER 2 - FOREIGNERS TRIBUNAL PROCESSES
THE PATH TO FOREIGNERS
TRIBUNALS
Foreigners Tribunals were created under the Foreigners
(Tribunals) Order, 1964 to determine whether a person is or
is not a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act,
1946. Although the proceedings under the Foreigners Act
are not criminal as per the Act itself, the consequences for
persons declared as ‘irregular foreigners’ are loss of liberty and
deportation.
There are two parallel processes through which cases get
referred to the Foreigners Tribunal. The first is through the
Election Commission. As aforementioned, the Election
Commission began a process of identifying D-voters in 1997.
The cases of all D-voters are sent to the Electoral Registration
Officer who scrutinizes documents. If he is not satisfied with
the documents, he sends the case to the Foreigners Tribunal.
The second process involves the Border Police, who also
identify ‘irregular foreigners’. These cases are referred to the
Superintendent of Police (Border) in the district where the
person lives and subsequently to the Foreigners Tribunal.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE
FOREIGNERS TRIBUNALS
Persons ‘accused’ of being ‘irregular foreigners’ must be given
a fair hearing by Foreigners Tribunals, in line with national and
international fair trial standards. However, proceedings before
Foreigners Tribunals are heavily weighed against the person
accused of being an ‘irregular foreigner’. Section 9 of the
Foreigners Act provides that the burden of proof is on the person
being accused of being an ‘irregular foreigner’. Lawyers working
on cases before Foreigners Tribunals in Assam informed Amnesty
India researchers that as a result of the reversal of burden of proof,
investigations have become shoddy and lackadaisical.
The Gauhati High Court has recognised these lax investigations
and cautioned against them:
“The reference by the referral authority29
also cannot be
mechanical. The referral authority has to apply his mind on
the materials collected by the investigating officer during
investigation and make the reference on being satisfied that
there are grounds for making such reference. The referral
authority, however, need not pass a detailed order recording
his satisfaction. An order agreeing with the investigation would
suffice. The referral authority also, while making the reference,
shall produce all the materials collected during investigation
before the Tribunal, as the Tribunal is required prima facie to
satisfy itself about the existence of the main grounds before
issuing the notice to the proceedee.”30
This was reiterated in State of Assam vs. Moslem Mondal
where the Gauhati High Court applied fair trial standards to
proceedings before the Foreigners Tribunal:
“Any procedure which comes in the way of a party in getting
a fair trial would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Fair trial also includes a fair investigation. The concept of fair
investigation and fair trial assumes much importance in the
matter of detection and deportation of foreigners under the
provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1964 Order as well as the
2012 Amendment Order, because of the nature of proceeding
as well as the burden cast on the person who is suspected to be
a foreigner to prove that he is not a foreigner, by Section 9 of
the 1946 Act. The citizenship right is to be jealously protected.
The right under Article 21 of the Constitution is available to all
persons to protect his life and personal liberty and hence even
the right of a non-citizen to have fair investigation, trial as well
fair procedure to be adopted by the Tribunal is guaranteed by
Article 21 of the Constitution.”
Proving citizenship is difficult because the scrutiny of
documents is done according to the standards of the Indian
Evidence Act. According to the Indian Evidence Act, documents
produced in evidence have to be produced in the original form

12
or through certified copies.31
If the loss of the original can be
proved, only then secondary evidence in the form of a copy
letter can be produced.32
The Indian Evidence Act requires
documents to be proved before they are admissible as evidence. 33
The determination process is divorced from the reality of
documents in India. It is harsh on clerical errors. Many
Indians, especially those belonging to poor and marginalized
communities, do not have certified copies of identity documents
to prove their citizenship to meet the rigorous standards of
the Indian Evidence Act.34
This is particularly true in the case
of Assam a state that has significant numbers of internally
displaced because of frequent outbreaks of violence, and
natural disasters. It is unreasonable to expect people fleeing
from violence and natural disasters to have and preserve
original identity documents. The process of procuring certified
copies is time consuming and expensive. In many instances,
people are facing detention and deportation largely because
they do not have documents to show their parents were citizens.
It is important to bear in mind that there was no way their
parents could have foreseen that the absence of such identity
documents could arbitrarily deprive their children of their
nationality and render them stateless decades later.
Instances of the Foreigners Tribunals declaring citizens as
‘irregular foreigners” for reasons of clerical errors—such as
differences in spellings of names or ages in electoral rolls, or
contradictions between answers given in cross-examinations
and what is written in the documents—are all too common.
Amnesty India researchers spoke to the family of Subrata Dey,
who died in detention on 26 May 2018.35
His mother and
brother said that his name was spelt as Subodh in his identity
documents. His claim of being an Indian was, therefore,
rejected by the Foreigners Tribunal and he was sent to a
detention centre in Goalpara, Assam. His family had made
preparations to file an appeal in the Gauhati High Court when
they learnt that he died in the detention centre.36
Amnesty
India also met Rahima Bibi, a detainee. She said that she could
not produce original documents and that was reason enough to
be sent to a detention centre in Kokrajhar.37
Amnesty India analysed 167 cases of appeals to the Gauhati High Court from the Foreigners Tribunals and found that persons accused of being
‘irregular foreigners’ were usually not ‘undocumented’. Most of them had some documents, but unfortunately these documents were inadequate
to prove their citizenship. Nur Mahammad Khan’s was one such case. He was declared an ‘irregular foreigner’ despite the fact that he produced
multiple documents, and a Foreigners Tribunal had declared his mother an Indian citizen. The Foreigners Tribunal’s decision was affirmed by
the Gauhati High Court. Some of the reasons provided by the High Court for declaring him an ‘irregular foreigner’ are:
– Witnesses had different accounts of whether Nur’s mother had a child before or after separation from her husband.
– Witnesses had different accounts of whether there was a formal divorce between his parents.
– The gaonbura (village headman) did not have personal knowledge of his place of the birth.
– The cousin who was examined had no personal knowledge of his family
– His mother stated that she had voted before 1993 but had not produced voter lists from that period.
– Certificate by a person claiming he is the son of a certain Altaf Khan is not admissible.
– Inconsistencies in his father’s details in voter lists.
– Contradictions in his mother’s account of the date of his birth.48
THE SEARCH FOR NUMBERS
Four UN Special Rapporteurs have observed that there has
been a notable and significant increase in the Tribunals’
findings of foreigner status as a result of the new government
coming into power. It is alleged that the Tribunals have been
declaring Bengali Muslims in Assam as foreigners resulting in
statelessness and risk of detention.38
Media reports have alluded to the Assam state government
applying pressure on Foreigners Tribunal members to declare
large numbers of people as ‘irregular foreigners’.39
On 20 June
2017, nineteen Foreigners Tribunal members were dismissed
for their "under performance in the last two years", and fifteen
others were asked to accelerate their rate of disposal of cases.40
These dismissed Tribunal members challenged their dismissal
before the Gauhati High Court. The High Court while examining
their dismissal noted irregularities in how the performance of
the Tribunal members was being assessed. The said assessment
was by the state government’s Home and Political Department
instead of the High Court even though the Foreigners Tribunal
are quasi-judicial bodies and the members are appointed by
the High Court.41
This indicates considerable scope for the
Home & Political Department to exert pressure on members of
the Foreigners Tribunal to declare large numbers of people as
‘irregular foreigners’ as fast as possible.
In 2012, the Foreigners Tribunal Order, 1964 was amended,
imposing a 60 day limit on completing proceedings before it.42
The proceedings before the Foreigners Tribunals include filing
of written statements, filing of written affidavits of witnesses,
evidence in chief, cross-examination, exhibition of documents
and arguments. Persons accused of being ‘irregular foreigners’
have to procure certified copies of documents which is a time
consuming process. It is challenging for all these stages to
be completed in 60 days while adhering to the principles of
natural justice and fairness.
Out of a total of 468,934 referrals to the Tribunals between
1985 and 2016, 80,194 people were declared ‘irregular
foreigners’ (an average of 2586 per year). This figure increased
drastically in 2017, reaching 13,434 in just eleven months,

13
averaging nearly 1221 every month.43
The pressure is not just
on Tribunal members, it is alleged to be on the Border Police to
find suspected ‘irregular foreigners’.44
The proceedings before the Foreigners Tribunal are complex and
navigating these processes requires the engagement of lawyers.
A good lawyer is critical for the person accused of being an
‘irregular foreigner’ to identify what evidence is needed and
how it is to be obtained and proved.45
For members of poor and
marginalized communities, engaging a lawyer and arranging
for documents involves significant expenditure. All the former
detainees whom Amnesty India spoke to had engaged private
lawyers who charged a fee.
Legal aid for persons appearing before the Foreigners Tribunal
appears to be highly inadequate. The National Legal Services
Authority (NALSA) intervened only as recently as July 2018
and directed the Assam State Legal Services Authority to
provide legal aid to people declared 'D' voters or facing trial
in Foreigners Tribunals.46
The newsletter published by the
National Legal Services Authority reveals that only 6,326
people in Assam accessed legal aid in 2017, across all districts
and courts. This figure is 1,069 for the period January-March
2018). These numbers for people with cases before the
Foreigners Tribunals will be even lower.47
Nearly 30% of the detainees in detention centres as on
4 February 2018 were declared ‘irregular foreigners’ in
proceedings in which they did not take part. This is a
violation of their right to be heard. Lawyers who practice at
the Foreigners Tribunals and former detainees told Amnesty
India that notice is often not served on persons accused of
being ‘irregular foreigners’. Many such persons fail to appear
before the Tribunal as they are unaware that they had to. They
invariably find out about decisions taken against them only
when the police reach their doorstep to arrest them and take
them into custody.
GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN
THE PROCESS
The process is particularly harsh on women due to difficulties
associated with compiling documents to prove citizenship.
Illiterate women and women from poor backgrounds are
particularly disadvantaged. Their births are invariably not
registered. Women would get married before attaining majority
and before their names are entered in the voter rolls. When
their names were entered in the voter rolls, it would as in
relation to their husbands’ names rather than their fathers’
names. They would end up not having any documents to prove
that they are the daughter of an individual who is an Indian
citizen.
It is possible for women to get a certificate from the gaonbura
(village headman) to prove family relations. However, this
certificate is admissible only if the gaonbura testifies to its
authenticity and has personal knowledge of where the accused
person was born and their link to an Indian citizen.49
Residents hold their documents as they stand in a queue
to check their names on the final list of National Register
of Citizens (NRC) at a NRC Sewa Kendra (NSK) in
Burgoan village in Morigoan district. Getty images

14
CHAPTER 3 - DETENTION AND DEPORTATION
ROUTINISATION OF DETENTION
Once a Foreigners Tribunal declares a person is a foreigner as
per the Foreigners Act, 1946, the person is invariably detained
in one of the six detention centres across Assam. The powers
of officials to detain people declared as foreigners stems from
Section 2 and 3(2)(g) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and Para
11(2) of the Foreigners Order, 1948. The Act provides for
non-custodial alternatives to detention such as requiring the
person to reside in a particular place, imposing restrictions of
movements, requiring the person to check in with authorities
periodically, prohibiting the person from associating with
certain people or engaging in certain activities.50
However, in
practice the Foreigners Tribunals treat detention as the default
option.
The use of detention has the sanction of the Assam state
government. The government of Assam in its ‘White Paper on
Foreigners Issue’ published in 20 October 2012, approved of
the use of detention for those declared as ‘irregular foreigners’
to restrict their movements and to ensure that they “do not
perform the act of vanishing.”51
Detention
centre
Detainees
in custody
since 2009
Detainees
in custody
since 2010
Detainees
in custody
since 2011
Detainees
in custody
since 2012
Detainees
in custody
since 2013
Detainees
in custody
since 2014
Detainees
in custody
since 2015
Detainees
in custody
since 2016
Detainees
in custody
since 2017
Detainees in
custody since
2018 (4 Feb)
KOKRAJHAR 0 8 3 3 2 5 50 42 38 3
TEZPUR 0 5 1 0 4 28 43 63 115 6
GOALPARA 1 3 4 3 4 16 60 74 82 5
JORHAT 0 1 1 1 4 0 18 41 44 1
SILCHAR 0 1 0 7 2 10 6 15 42 2
DIBRUGARH 0 0 1 0 1 1 5 8 12 2
Total 1 18 10 14 17 60 182 243 333 19
According to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, detention of illegal immigrants must be the exception, not
the rule, and indefinite detention is clearly in violation of applicable international human rights instruments governing
deprivation of liberty.55
Detention for removal and deportation should, therefore, end when it becomes apparent that
there is little prospect that deportation will occur within a reasonable period. Article 21 guarantees the right to life and
personal liberty to all persons within India. International law also recognizes the right to liberty, including protection
from arbitrary arrest and detention for everyone, regardless of legal status.56
In the context of immigration control, this
right can only be restricted in certain limited circumstances. A presumption against detention should be established
by law, and the burden of proof to displace it in a given case must rest on the detaining authorities.57
Alternative non-
custodial measures should always be considered first, especially since these are available under the Foreigners Act,
1946, before resorting to detention.
At that point in 2012 there were three detention centres in
Assam, Goalpara, Kokrajhar and Silchar. Three more were
added later, in Tezpur, Jorhat and Dibrugarh. The law does not
provide a statutory time limit for detention.
PROLONGED AND INDEFINITE
DETENTION
Data from the detention centres reveals a pattern of prolonged
detention. The uncertainty of such indefinite detention can
have devastating effects on the mental health of the detainees.
The table below illustrates that as on 4 February 2018, there
were people in detention since 2009. 33% of the detainees
had been in detention for more than two years.53
The number
of detainees increased significantly from 2015 onwards
because the number of Foreigners Tribunals increased and the
number of people being declared as ‘irregular foreigners’ also
increased.54

15
Families are separated. So, you have within the same family, a
man in one detention centre, a woman in another. Children below
six can stay with mothers in the detention camp, but after six the
boys are sent out, and nobody takes responsibility. There is no
form of communication with other members of your family. And
it is hardest when they are in two different detention centres,
where there is absolutely no way they can communicate. But even
if one spouse or say relative is living outside… I mean people
said that out of the kindness of their hearts, officials, sometimes
unofficially, share their mobile phones and people are able to
communicate once in a blue moon.
Harsh Mander, former Special Monitor, National Human Rights
Commission (NHRC)60
DETENTION AND SEPARATION OF
FAMILIES
The process of determining ‘irregular foreigners’ also results
in separation of families. Spouses who are declared ‘irregular
foreigners’ are not always kept in the same detention centre.
Mohammad Ayub and his wife Rahima Khatun were declared
‘irregular foreigners’ by a Foreigners Tribunal. She is in a
detention centre in Kokrajhar Prison and he is in the one in
Goalpara Prison.58
They have lost their appeal in the Supreme
Court and their family is staring at years of separation. Children
are the worst affected when families are separated. Detaining
children for immigration purposes is never in their best
interest.59
DETAINING INDIVIDUALS
WITH VULNERABILITIES
The Foreigners Act makes no exception for detention of
pregnant or lactating mothers. Their circumstances are not
taken into account when determining the necessity and
proportionality of detention. Rashminara Begum, a former
detainee was served a notice asking her to appear before a
Foreigners Tribunal in Goalpara because of contradictory dates
of birth mentioned in her school leaving certificates. She
submitted nine documents to prove her citizenship but was
declared an ‘irregular foreigner’ on 31 October 2016 because
of technical issues in the documents. She also was not sure of
her age and year of birth. She was sent to a detention centre
in Kokhrajhar, even though she was in an advanced stage of
pregnancy. She gave birth while in detention.61
The Supreme
Court has granted her bail because of childbirth.62
DEPORTATIONS
As mentioned earlier, people who fail to prove Indian citizenship
are mostly presumed to be Bangladeshi nationals. As observed
by UN Special Rapporteurs, the process disproportionately
affects Bengali Muslims, as they are frequently assumed to be
Bangladeshi citizens.63
Tribunal members rarely make efforts
to ascertain the nationality of persons declared ‘irregular
foreigners’. Orders of the Foreigners Tribunal prescribe
detention and eventual deportation to Bangladesh. In 2013,
the Gauhati High Court in State of Assam vs. Moslem Mondol
ordered that the process of deportation had to be completed
within two months of a person being declared an ‘irregular
foreigner’.64
In reality the process of deportation is long and
cumbersome.
The Government of India, in its affidavit before the Supreme
Court in Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha vs Union of India,
described the process of deportation to Bangladesh. The state
government has to first provide details of the person to the
Indian Ministry of Home Affairs, which refers it to the Ministry
of External Affairs. The Ministry of External Affairs then refers
the case to the Bangladeshi authorities, who investigate the
matter. Once the Bangladeshi authorities verify that the person
is Bangladeshi, they are repatriated.65
The reality is that the number of persons actually deported
to Bangladesh is quite small. The Indian Minister of State
for Home Affairs, Kiren Rijuju stated before the Lok Sabha
(the lower house of the Indian Parliament) that in the years
2016 and 2017, 39 Bangladeshi nationals were deported
from detention camps. Assam’s Industry Minister Chandra
Mohan Patowary said while replying to a question in the
Assam legislative Assembly that the Assam state government
has pushed back a total of 29,663 declared foreigners and
convicted persons to Bangladesh till December 31, 2017.
He also said that 128 Bangladeshis have been deported till
August 31, 2018.66
To give context to this number, it would
be useful to keep in mind that in 2017, 13,434 people were
declared foreigners by Foreigners Tribunals over 11 months
in 2017. The state machinery clearly does not have the
wherewithal to deport large number of people to Bangladesh,
even in the unlikely scenario that Bangladesh agrees to take
them. With respect to NRC, the Bangladeshi government has
made it abundantly clear that it is an internal Indian matter and
that it is not willing to take anyone declared a foreigner in the
process. The Indian government has also not raised the issue of
deportation with Bangladesh.67
The Indian government has sanctioned funds for the Assam
government to build a new detention centre, signaling its
continuing approval of the use of detention in immigration
cases. The Assam government will consider shifting current
detainees to the new facility. The new center will have a
capacity to hold 3000 detainees and is expected to be
completed by 31 August 2019.68

16
Amnesty India researchers met the family of Gul Muhammad.
Gul Muhammad was declared an ‘irregular foreigner’. His
family told Amnesty India that he was forced to sign a
document with a fictitious address in Bangladesh. He was
deported to Bangladesh in 2009 by dropping him off near the
border. However, he managed to return to Assam. He lived in
Assam for the next seven years, till he was again picked up one
day by the police and sent to a detention centre.52
Gulbahar Begum and Junaki Begum claim
Gul Muhammad was dropped off near the Bangladesh
border in the name of deportation.

17
©AmnestyIndia

18
OVERCROWDING
Detainees face indefinite detention in overcrowded prisons
where there is no segregation of detainees from convicts and
undertrial prisoners. Former detainees interviewed by Amnesty
India researchers said that the prisons were overcrowded with
hardly any space to move or even turn around.
A doctor who had been working with prison inmates and
detainees in Assam also described overcrowding in the
detention centres. He told Amnesty India researchers that in
some prisons where the total capacity was 250, there were up
to 400 inmates. He described the congestion as being obvious
to everyone.
CHAPTER 4 - CONDITIONS OF DETENTION
INSIDE DETENTION CENTRES
As a former Special Monitor of the NHRC, Harsh
Mander visited two detention centres in January
2018 and observed a situation of “grave and
extensive human distress and suffering”. He has
also filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court
seeking redress for violation of fundamental rights
and internationally recognized human rights of
detainees in six detention centres across Assam.
In September 2018, the Supreme Court issued
a notice to the Central Government and Assam
government in this case.
An illustrative sketch showing how overcrowded
detention centres are in Assam.

19
Kismat Ali,69
whose Indian citizenship was recognized after he
spent more than two years in a detention centre in Goalpara, as
a ‘D’ voter said to Amnesty India researchers,
“The room had a capacity of 40 people. When we reached it
was filled with around 120 people. There was no space. We had
to live on top of each other. Ashraf (another former detainee)
and I slept next to the bathroom. It was dirty. We couldn’t
get any sleep. You’d get around 1.5-2 feet space for yourself.
We weren’t allowed to take more space. If we did, we were
threatened. The convicts get much bigger and broader beds.
At that time, we were all put together – we shared space with
convicts, all mixed. Each day the numbers kept increasing. It
was very hot, there was a fan, but still it was hot. There was no
space or peace. They started building other rooms as the room
got overcrowded. The new rooms were given to older people;
young people were kept in the original room with the convicts.”
The experience of women detainees was no different. Bina Rani
Saha who was in the Kokrajhar detention centre for two years
said to Amnesty India researchers, “We were surrounded by
walls. Not even a cat or dog could enter. I remember there were
a lot of people. We slept on the floor on blankets. All of us in
rows next to one another.70
” Rahima Bibi,71
who was also in the
same detention centre said, “There were 50 or 60 or 70 of us
in one room. We were all kept together.”
[W]e have taken up the cause of how to have detainees with
dignified conditions; and we would like to state that we are
completely against the idea of the detention camp, that we
want all of them broken down, everyone’s human rights are
guaranteed. And if by any case someone is found to be a
foreigner, we want them to be returned to their home country in
a humane manner. With due decorum in handling such a case,
going by all the international protocols, we have them returned
home. And apart from the act of deportation, we do not wish
any kinds of violence, and abuse, or atrocities or injustice on the
people. Hence, I want to say that the issue of statelessness, and
detention camp, as a graveyard of human society. And we want
all this to stop.
– Akhil Gogoi, General Secretary, Krishak Mukti
Sangram Samiti72

20
MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES
A doctor working in detention centres, pointed to the health
issues that detainees face, “Most of them (men or women)
have depression. The Civil Hospital did not have a psychiatrist
and that is why we tried holding camps. We tried referring the
acute psychosis cases to hospitals in Guwahati, Barpeta and
Tezpur.” But the main shortcoming for detainees remained
that the environment is not mentally healthy for them. They
are not criminals and yet the jail security guards treat them as
criminals.
Many of the persons Amnesty India spoke to reported that
fellow detainees were suffering from mental health problems.
The facilities for treatment of mental health disorders within
the prisons are highly inadequate.
Rashminara told Amnesty India researchers, “The women
used to cry a lot. They also went hungry, the chai pani (food
and drink) was not enough. There was immense sadness. The
women were brought so far away from their homes. They weren’t
allowed to be given things from outside. Women weren’t even
allowed many visitors.” Rashminara talked about women who
would talk to trees. She described a woman as having suffered
from “brain short” which was her way of describing someone
who had, according to her, lost her mental equilibrium while in
detention.
Individuals who had formerly been detained, one doctor and
Harsh Mander agreed that they had observed very high levels
of depression. When Harsh Mander went inside a prison and
detainees realized that someone was speaking to them with
empathy, they gathered around him and started to weep. Some
of them lay prostrate, holding his feet and begging him to get
them out of prison.
LIMITED COMMUNICATION
WITH FAMILY
While describing the difficulty they face when they have to meet
their family members inside prison, some families told Amnesty
India researchers that the distance and cost involved is often
prohibitively expensive. They felt uncomfortable in the spaces
where detainees meet visitors because of the presence of prison
staff. The families of detainees felt that the detainees could not
speak freely to them about the conditions inside the detention
centres in such circumstances.
Anima Dey’s son Subrata died in the Goalpara detention centre
on 26 May 2018 within two months of being sent there. When
asked if her son described the conditions in the detention
centre, Anima said, “No, he never said anything about the
conditions. How could he? Whenever we met him, there was
always police and jailors surrounding the place. They would be
standing a little behind him. They (authorities) said he passed
away because of a heart attack. But it was very difficult to
know what kind of a situation he lived in. When we saw him on
Monday it was evident that he was weak and coughing” The
district administration in the lower Assam district has ordered a
magisterial inquiry into Dey’s death.74
I feel terrible. Whenever I remember her, miss her, I go visit her. I
ask my husband for some money and go to see her. They are not
allowed to be given home-cooked food when we go visit them, but
they are allowed stuff brought from shops like bananas, grapes,
and so on. I take things like that for her. I also take clothes from
home to give to her. She cries a lot, holding my hand, she cries
and tell me how ill she feels and she wants to be taken away from
there. Asks us to arrange something to help her get out, tells us to
do it faster.
– Nazima Begum, Sister in law of detainee Mollika Begum
An illustrative sketch of the living conditions inside detention centres in Assam.

21
POOR FOOD QUALITY
The formers detainees whom Amnesty India researchers spoke to
described the quality of food that detainees were served as being
very poor. Breakfast was meagre and would comprise of one roti
(flat bread) and tea without milk. Tea with milk would be given
once in a while. By 10 am, all prison inmates are given lunch of
rice, lentils and one vegetable.
“Prison authorities state that since they are all technically
foreigners they cannot be given parole or waged work. All these
are unwritten rules. So, people who have been in the camps
since 2010, and there are many who have spent years there,
have spent all these years doing nothing.”
– Aman Wadud, a lawyer representing detainees 80
DETENTION OF CHILDREN
There are 31 children inside detention centres in Assam as of
25 September 2018.75
Many female detainees while speaking
to Amnesty India researchers said there were children staying
with their mothers inside the detention centres. Some of them
had even attained majority in detention. Rashminara Begum, a
former detainee also talked about children inside the detention
centre, “Children had to eat the same food. On a rare day, a
jailor would get them bananas and biscuits. If anyone inside
the jail knew to teach anything, they would help.”76
Former
detainees told Amnesty India that children growing up in
prisons had no counseling and were left to themselves. They
recalled that they were taken to a school in a car and brought
back to the prison after class.
While girls were allowed to stay with their mothers, boys above
the age of six years were sent out of the detention centres.
Although this takes them out of the confines of the prison, often
there is no one willing to take responsibility for them.77
Detention of children with their parents in prisons is contrary
to international human rights standards, especially the best
interests’ principle in the United Nations Convention on
the Rights of the Child.78
According to Article 37(b) of the
Convention on the Rights of the Child: “No child shall be
deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. The arrest,
detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with
the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and
for the shortest appropriate period of time.”
RESTRICTIONS ON WORK
AND MOVEMENT
Detainees are also subjected to severe restrictions of movement.
When detainees and other prison inmates are sent to hospitals
for treatment, they are escorted by reserve police and prison
staff. These escorts regularly violate standard rules in their
treatment of detainees. As a doctor interviewed by Amnesty
India said, “There is no rule to handcuff them (the detainees)
but if the escort party feels that they want to do this, they
do it.” There are also instances of detainee patients being
handcuffed to hospital beds in violation of Supreme Court
guidelines.79
The Assam Prison Manual governs the running of the detention
centres, since they are within prisons. However, unlike convicts,
detainees do not get work inside prison nor are they eligible for
parole. They hang in a limbo within the prison and are subject
to various unwritten rules created by the prison authorities.
Some former detainees told Amnesty India researchers that
there have been occasions when they were asked to do cleaning
work, including cleaning toilets in detention centres and were
not paid for it.
An illustrative sketch of the living conditions inside detention centres in Assam.

22
CONCLUSION
On 31 October 2018, while hearing a petition filed by Harsh Mander seeking redress for
violations of fundamental rights and internationally recognised human rights of detainees
being held in Assam, the Supreme Court said to the Assam state government “You (Assam
state government) cannot put a person in a detention centre and say you will decide later
what’s to be done about them. It must be planned out in advance. You’re detaining people
against their wish; you must provide them certain basic facilities’.81
The Supreme Court has
also asked the Assam government to prepare the detention manual within two months and
ensure that families are not separated.82
For some families these instructions might be too little, too late. The entire process,
starting from the identification of persons suspected of being ‘irregular foreigners’ to them
being taken to the detention centre is vitiated by irregularities like non-serving of notice,
lackadaisical investigations, inadequate legal representation and routinisation of detention.
Our research also shows that detention causes serious harm to detainees’ mental and physical
health. It also has a devastating impact on their families outside. This is especially so in
cases of indefinite detention. Detainees experience isolation and confusion while being held
in prisons along with convicts and undertrial prisoners. They rarely have an understanding of
why they have lost their liberty and how they can regain it.
The process of updating the NRC is only adding to the uncertainty in Assam. There have been
at least 16 instances of suicides by people who fear of losing their or their family members’
citizenship.83
This uncertainty has created a climate of fear where anyone who seems like
an outsider is under suspicion. This climate is fed by irresponsible and unsubstantiated
statements made by various political leaders. For example, BJP legislator Shiladitya Dev has
repeatedly made controversial remarks against Bangladeshis. Recently, he claimed that many
people from Bangladesh are included in the NRC and that they are “indulging in love jihad
and other criminal activities in Assam”.84
The Prime Minister Narendra Modi has claimed
that people from Bangladesh are entering Assam on a daily basis.85
The underlying hyperbolic
seems to be aimed at dehumanising Bengali speaking people.
The Indian government’s response to Harsh Mander’s petition has been a blanket denial of
all allegations of wrongdoing made in it. The reply from the Ministry of Home Affairs insists
that instructions have been sent to the Assam government to set up detention centres
that have “all the basic amenities like electricity with generator, drinking water, hygiene,
accommodation with beds, sufficient toilets/baths with provision of running water, provision
for kitchen, round the clock security arrangements, security posts and guard rooms, etc., are
provided”. Other instructions include sufficient open space for detainees to move around in
a secure environment, segregated accommodation for male and female detainees, proper
boundary wall with dense barbed wire fencing above the boundary wall, dignity of detainees,
adequate medical attendance for detainees.
Amnesty India is not aware any of these instructions being complied with by the Assam
government. Amnesty India’s questions to the Assam state government on action taken
on the Report of the Special Monitor of the NHRC, conditions in detention centres, the
consequences of exclusion from the NRC and legal aid remain unanswered. Given that a new
detention centre is being constructed in Assam, for now it seems like the indefinite detention
of ‘irregular foreigners’ will continue.

23
People stand in line to check their names on the
first draft of the National Register of Citizens
(NRC) at Gumi village of Kamrup district in Assam.
Getty images

24
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Government of India should
– Ensure, that in any given case, migration detention is lawful, necessary,
proportionate and used only as a last resort.
– Introduce a statutory time limit for detaining irregular foreigners.
– Significantly reduce the use of detention for irregular foreigners,
ensuring that far fewer people are detained and that anyone who is
detained is held for a far shorter time.
The Government of Assam should
– Ensure that persons detained under the provisions of the Foreigners
Act, 1946, are segregated from convicts and undertrials, and housed in
separate detention centres with basic amenities.
– Ensure that an operations manual for detention centres is created that
addresses the specific circumstances of detainees
– Ensure the right to the highest attainable standard of medical care to all
detainees, including access to appropriate mental health care through
psychiatrists, psychologists and torture and trauma counselors.
– Take steps to fulfill the legal duty to treat the best interests of all
children affected by detention decisions as a primary consideration.
– Permit periodic audits of detention centres by independent auditors.
– Ensure that principles of natural justice are followed in citizenship
determination processes.
People stand in line to check their names on the first
draft of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) at Gumi
village of Kamrup district in Assam. Getty images

25
ddf

26
1. The term ‘irregular foreigner’ is used in this briefing to denote a person who does
not valid documentation to be in India and has been declared as a foreigner under
the Foreigners Act.
2. A.Sharma, “Assam has deported only 29,795 foreigners” The Pioneer 25 September
2018 https://www.dailypioneer.com/2018/india/assam-has-deported-only-29-795-
foreigners.html (accessed 1 October 2018)
3. “Constituent Assembly Debates On 12 August, 1949” Constituent Assembly of India
- Volume IX https://indiankanoon.org/doc/894396/ (accessed 10 September 2018)
4. Article 5 of the Constitution provided that all those who had their domicile in India
at the time of the commencement of the Constitution, would be citizens if they
were born in India, if either of their parents were born in India, or if they had been
ordinarily resident in India for not less than five years immediately preceding the
commencement.
5. Articles 10 and 11 left it to the Parliament to detail the framework for citizenship.
6. J.Joseph, “Securitization of illegal migration of Bangladeshis to India” (RSIS
Working Paper, No. 100). Singapore: Nanyang Technological University, 2006
7. In 1971, after a war of independence, Bangladesh was created out of the territory
that was formerly East Pakistan. This led to a huge movement of people from
Bangladesh to India. Some accounts state that by May 1971, some ten million
individuals had found sanctuary on Indian soil S. Ganguly and B.Miliate “When
Refugees Were Welcome” Foreign Affairs September 22, 2015.
8. M.Encinas, “Migrant Rights and Extraordinary Law in India: The Cases of Assam
and Jammu & Kashmir” South Asia:Journal of South Asian Studies, 40(3), 463–480,
2017
9. M. Amarjeet Singh,” Conflicts in Assam” Bangalore: National Institute of Advanced
Studies, 2010 http://eprints.nias.res.in/299/1/B3-2010-_Assam.pdf (accessed 10
September 2018)
10. U.Parashar, NRC list: Anxiety, anticipation as Assam waits to know citizenship
status, Hindustan Times 29 July 2018https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/
nrc-list-anxiety-anticipation-as-assam-waits-to-know-citizenship-status/story-
lnkuhCrvp2bqqMWuKZXI0L.html (accessed 20 September 2018)
11. M. Amarjeet Singh,” Conflicts in Assam” Bangalore: National Institute of Advanced
Studies, 2010 http://eprints.nias.res.in/299/1/B3-2010-_Assam.pdf (accessed 10
September 2018)
12. S.Krishnan “Thirty-Two Years Later, the Nellie Massacre Remains All But Forgotten”
18 February 2015 The Caravanhttp://www.caravanmagazine.in/vantage/thirty-two-
years-later-nellie-massacre-remains-all-forgotten (Accessed 20 September 2018)
13. This cut-off date precedes the Bangladesh war of independence, which began on 26
March 1971 and led to millions fleeing from the territory of what is now Bangladesh
to India.
14. Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1985
15. This challenge will be heard by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, as a
result of a referral order under Article 145(3) of the Constitution, passed in the case
of Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha vs Union of India (2015) 3 SCC 1.
16. Walter Fernandes, “The IMDT Act and Immigration in North Eastern India” Economic
and Political Weekly 40 (n. 30), pp. 3237-3240, 2005
17. S.K.Sinha, “Report on Illegal Migration into Assam” 1998http://www.satp.org/
satporgtp/countries/india/states/assam/documents/papers/illegal_migration_in_
assam.htm (Accessed 10 September 2018)
18. The Court also went on to describe the migration from Bangladesh as an “external
aggression” against the State of Assam.
19. R.Misra and P.Sultana, “Birth of a Nation and Lost Identities” Journal of Identity
and Migration Studies, 9(2), 18, 2015
20. Mamoni Rajkumari vs State of Assam, Judgment dated 22 December, 2017, Gauhati
High Court http://ghconline.nic.in/Judgment/WPC44762017.pdf (Accessed 30
August 2018)
21. (2015) 3 SCC 1.
22. J. P.Das, “The Political Exclusion of (Illegal) Bangladeshi Immigrants in Assam”
Glocalism: Journal of Culture, Politics and Innovation, 3, 2015
23. I.Chakravarty, Assam’s search for its ‘original inhabitants’ returns a key question:
Who is Assamese, anyway? Scroll, Feb 18, 2016
https://scroll.in/article/803509/assams-search-of-its-original-inhabitants-returns-
a-key-question-who-is-assamese-anyway (accessed 1 October 2018) N.Roshan,
“The River Between: The Bengali Muslim Community of Western Assam” The
Caravan 10 April 2016
https://caravanmagazine.in/vantage/the-river-between-dhubri-bengali-muslims-
assam (accessed 10 October 2018)
24. A. Guha, “Little Nationalism Turned Chauvinist: Assam's Anti-Foreigner Upsurge,
1979-80” Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 15, No. 41/43, 1699, 1980
25. R.Karmakar, “Over 40 lakh left out of draft NRC in Assam” The Hindu, 30 July 2018
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/over-40-lakh-people-left-
out-in-new-draft-nrc/article24550576.ece (accessed 1 September 2018)
26. After the publication of the draft list, the NRC authorities wanted to drop five key
documents (the extract of the 1951 NRC, copy of electoral rolls up to 24 March 1971,
citizenship and refugee registration certificates up to 24 March 1971 and ration
cards) from the list of 15 documents through which a person could file their claims for
inclusion in the NRC. This further added to the uncertainty that the 4 million people
who were excluded from the draft list were facing. The state government of Assam has
opposed this move. The Supreme Court has decided against the NRC authorities and
has allowed these five documents R.Choudhury, “Assam Citizens' List Chief Alleges
Efforts To Include Illegal Migrants” 27 October 2018https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/
national-register-of-citizens-assam-chief-prateek-hajela-alleges-efforts-to-include-
illegal-migrants-1938606 P.Kalita, “NRC: Assam seeks inclusion of 5 documents, to
file affidavit in SC” The Times of IndiaOct 27, 2018 R.Choudhury, “Assam Citizens' List
Chief Alleges Efforts To Include Illegal Migrants” 27 October 2018https://www.ndtv.com/
india-news/national-register-of-citizens-assam-chief-prateek-hajela-alleges-efforts-to-
include-illegal-migrants-1938606
27. NRC in Assam: ‘Those excluded won’t be deported, PM Modi told Sheikh Hasina’ The
Indian Express 6 October 2018 https://indianexpress.com/article/india/assam-nrc-
narendra-modi-sheikh-hasina-5389175/ (accessed on 11 October 2018)
28. W.Hussain, “NRC and the nativity test in Assam”The Asian Age 3 August 2018
http://www.asianage.com/opinion/oped/030818/nrc-and-the-nativity-test-in-
assam.html
29. The referral authority is the Election Commission or the Border Police.
30. State of Assam vs. Moslem Mandal Review Petition No. 22 of 2010 Judgment and
Order dated 3 January, 2013
31. Section 64 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
32. Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
33. The Supreme Court has held that “It was the duty of the petitioners to have proved
the documents in accordance with law. Under the Law of Evidence also, it is
necessary that contents of documents are required to be proved either by primary
or by secondary evidence. At the most, admission of documents may amount to
admission of contents but not its truth.” LIC of India vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1510376/
34. As recent as 2007, the birth of 6.6 million children went unregistered in 2007.
K.Sinha, “25% of Indian births not registered” The Times of India 2 March 2012
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/12104158.cms?utm_
source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst (accessed 21
September 2018)
35. A. Saha, “They had papers to show nationality but died as foreigners in Assam
camps” The Indian Express 20 October 2018 https://indianexpress.com/article/
north-east-india/assam/assam-nrc-foreigners-tribunals-in-assam-detention-
camps-5409909/ (accessed 5 October 2018)
36. Interview with Anima Dey, mother of Subrata Dey,13 July 2018
37. Interview with Rahima Bibi, 13 July, 2018
38. Letter from Special Rapporteurs, Reference: OL IND 13/2018 https://www.ohchr.
org/Documents/Issues/Racism/SR/Communications/OL-IND-13-2018.pdf (accessed
10 September 2018). See also A.Saha, “The Uncounted Part 4: Their Next Stop” The
Indian Express 5 August 2018.
https://indianexpress.com/article/north-east-india/assam/nrc-migrants-
citizenship-rajnath-singh-bangladesh-the-uncounted-part-4-their-next-
stop-5291925/
39. A.Saha, “The Uncounted Part 4: Their Next Stop” The Indian Express 5 August 2018
ENDNOTES:

27
https://indianexpress.com/article/north-east-india/assam/nrc-migrants-
citizenship-rajnath-singh-bangladesh-the-uncounted-part-4-their-next-
stop-5291925/
40. S.Ray, “19 underperforming Members shown door” Assam Tribune 21 June 2017
http://www.assamtribune.com/scripts/mdetails.asp?id=jun2217/at056 (accessed
30 August 2018)
41. Mamoni Rajkumari vs State of Assam, Judgment dated 22nd December, 2017
http://ghconline.nic.in/Judgment/WPC44762017.pdf (accessed 30 August 2018)
42. Foreigners (Tribunal ) Amendment Order, 2012 https://assam.gov.in/
documents/1631171/0/Annexure_11.pdf?version=1.0&t=1444717501035
43. Letter from Special Rapporteurs, Reference: OL IND 13/2018 https://www.ohchr.org/
Documents/Issues/Racism/SR/Communications/OL-IND-13-2018.pdf (accessed 10
September 2018)
44. R.Karmakar, “Ground Zero: The 'suspected foreigners' of Assam” The Hindu 14 July 2018
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/staring-at-statelessness/
article24413512.ece
45. Article 39A of the Constitution of India states that free legal aid must be provided
to ensure that access to justice is not denied because of economic or other
disabilities. The Supreme Court in Francis Corallie Mullin v. Administrator, Union
Territory of Delhi stated that the right of a detainee to consult a legal adviser is not
merely limited to defence in criminal proceedings but should also be available to
persons in preventive detention. (1981) 1 SCC 608
46. “Legal aid directive for 'D' voters” The Telegraph 26 July 2018 https://www.
telegraphindia.com/states/north-east/legal-aid-directive-for-d-voters/cid/1456018
(accessed 10 October 2018)
47. Quarterly Legal Services Bulletin Issues 1 of 2016, 2 of 2016, 3 of 2016, 4 of 2016,
1&2 of 2017, 3&4 of 2017, 1 of 2018, National Legal Services Authority https://
nalsa.gov.in/news-letter (accessed 1 October 2018)
48. Nur Muhammad Khan vs. Union of India, Judgment dated 29 January 2018 in WA
224/2014 before the Gauhati High Court
49. Rupajan Begum Vs. Union of India(2018) 1 SCC 579
50. Section 3(2)(e), Foreigners Act, 1946
51. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/assam-publishes-
white-paper-on-foreigners-issue-says-influx-has-declined/articleshow/16890478.
cmshttps://assam.gov.in/web/home-and-political-department/white-paper#24
52. Interview with Junaki Begum, daughter and Gul Bahar, wife of Gul Muhammad, 15
July 2018
53. Reply to unstarred question no 317 in Assam Legislative Assembly dated 19
February 2018.
September 2018).
55. United Nations Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention - Mission to Angola, A/HRC/7/4/Add.4, 29 February 2008, at paragraph 97.
https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G08/111/22/PDF/G0811122.
pdf?OpenElement (accessed 20 November 2018)
56. ICCPR, Art. 9(1); UDHR, Arts. 3, 7, 9; HRC General Comment 35; General Assembly
Body of Principles, Principle 2; ECHR, Art. 5(1); Refugee Convention, Art. 31;
Migrant Worker Convention, Art. 16(1); Declaration on the Human Rights of
Individuals who are not nationals of the country in which they live, A/RES/40/144
57. HRC General Comment 35, at paras 18, 19, 21, 62
58. Interview with Ashmina Begum and Ruhul Ahmed, children of Mohammad Ayub and
Rahima Khatun, 16 July 2018
59. UNHCR, ‘UNHCR’s Position on the Detention of Refugee and Migrant Children in
the Migration Context’, January 2017, www.refworld.org/docid/5885c2434.html
(accessed 5 October 2018)
60. Interview with Harsh Mander, 5 August 2018
61. Interview with Rashminara Begum, 13 July 2018
62. Rashminara Begum vs The Union Of IndiaJudgment and Order dated 22 May 2017
in WP(C) No.7102 of 2016, Gauhati High Court
September 2018).
64. Review Petition No. 22 of 2010 Judgment and Order dated 3 January 2013
65. (2015) 3 SCC 1.
66. Reply to unstarred question no 3 in Assam Legislative Assembly dated 24 Septmber
2018
67. S.Roy, Quietly, Delhi kept Dhaka in NRC loop: No deportation talk The Indian Express
4 August 2018
https://indianexpress.com/article/india/quietly-delhi-kept-dhaka-in-nrc-loop-no-
deportation-talk-5291048/ (accessed 1 October 2018)
68. “Framing guidelines for keeping foreigners in detention centres, Centre tells
Supreme Court” Hindustan Times 5 November 2018
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/framing-guidelines-for-
keeping-foreigners-in-detention-centres-centre-tells-supreme-court/story-
6sqdj7XbsqER9einpQ8ICM.html A.Saha, “Assam gets central nod for new detention
camp for ‘declared foreigners’ The Indian Express 25July 2018
https://indianexpress.com/article/north-east-india/assam-gets-central-nod-for-
new-detention-camp-for-declared-foreigners-5274530/
69. Interview with Kismat Ali, 14 July 2018
70. Interview with Bina Rani Saha, 13 July 2018
71. Interview with Rahima Bibi, 13 July, 2018
72. Interview with Akhil Gogoi, 21 May, 2018.
73. Interview with Anima Dey, 13 July 2018
74. S.Ahmed And M.P.Dutta, Probe into death of 'D-voter' The Telegraph 27 May 2018
https://www.telegraphindia.com/states/north-east/probe-into-death-of-39-d-
voter-39/cid/1450070 (accessed 5 October 2018)
75. A.Sharma, “Assam has deported only 29,795 foreigners” The Pioneer 25 September
2018. https://www.dailypioneer.com/2018/india/assam-has-deported-only-29-795-
foreigners.html (accessed 1 October 2018)
76. Interview with Rashminara Begum, 13 July 2018
77. Interview with Harsh Mander, 5 August 2018
78. Article 3
79. Citizens for Democracy V State of Assam and Ors. http://www.wbja.nic.in/
wbja_adm/files/When%20the%20police%20arrests%20a%20person%20in%20
execution%20of%20a%20warrant%20of%20arrest%20obtained%20from%20
a%20magistrate,%20the%20person%20so%20arrested%20shall%20not%20
be%20handcuffed%20unless%20special%20order%20in%20that%20respect%20
are%20obtained%20from%20the%20magistrate.pdf. See also Chained To Hospital
Bed, Assam Ignores Worst Human Right Violations” Pratidin 5 November 2018
https://www.pratidintime.com/chained-to-hospital-bed-assam-ignores-worst-
human-right-violations/
80. Interview with Aman Wadud, 16 July 2018
81. “SC slams Assam govt for keeping foreign nationals in detention centres without
plan” Financial Express October 31, 2018https://www.financialexpress.com/india-
news/sc-slams-assam-govt-for-keeping-foreign-nationals-in-detention-centres-
without-plan/1367961/
82. Re – Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons WP 406/2013 order dated 20 September,
2018
83. A.Ashraf, “NRC in Assam: 16 committed suicide due to citizens' register; number
of Hindus three times that of Muslims 4 November 2018” https://www.firstpost.
com/india/nrc-in-assam-data-shows-16-committed-suicide-due-to-citizenship-
registry-number-of-hindus-three-times-that-of-muslims-5501561.html (accessed
10 November 2018
84. P.Sarma, “Many Bangladeshis in NRC, says MLA” The Telegraph 4 October 2018
https://www.telegraphindia.com/states/north-east/many-bangladeshis-in-nrc-
says-mla/cid/1445877 (accessed 10 October 2018)
85. “PM Modi vows to halt illegal immigration from Bangladesh” Mint 30 November
2014 https://www.livemint.com/Politics/r0yv2tLDKFbeilppRDmjKN/Narendra-Modi-
vows-to-halt-illegal-immigration-from-Banglade.html

AMNESTY INDIA
#235, 13th Cross, Indira Nagar, 2nd Stage
Bangalore – 560038. Karnataka, India
JOIN THE CONVERSATION
www.facebook.com/AIIndia
@AIIndia
CONTACT US
contact@amnesty.org.in
+91 80 49388000

Surviving Migration Detention in Assam

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to Surviving Migration Detention in Assam

Similar to Surviving Migration Detention in Assam (20)

More from Amnesty India

More from Amnesty India (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Surviving Migration Detention in Assam