‘Misinformation’, not persecution: Gauhati High Court backs foreigner’s expulsion

“…it may be stated that it is perhaps a wrong perception in a section of media report projecting that religious persecution is going on in the State of Assam, which appears to be an example of misinformation warfare being carried out against the Country in general and the State of Assam in particular. Accordingly, the act of the appropriate Government to keep in holding camps, a ‘declared foreign national’ and/or ‘foreigner’ as declared by a Foreigners Tribunal, cannot be faulted with,” the court said on March 25.

Tribunal declaration, expulsion

The petitioner challenged an ex parte opinion dated December 12, 2012, passed by a Foreigners Tribunal in Hojai, which declared Begum’s father a foreigner who had entered India after March 25, 1971, the statutory cut-off date under the Assam Accord framework.

Despite obtaining a certified copy of the order in 2016, the petitioner approached the Gauhati High Court only on March 19, 2026. Meanwhile, the authorities issued an expulsion order on December 26, 2025, under the Immigration (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950, and acted upon it by detaining and expelling the petitioner’s father.

The petitioner argued that her father was illiterate and unaware of legal procedures and he could not effectively contest the tribunal proceedings despite his initial appearance.

She informed the court that she was denied a fair opportunity, leading to an ex parte order. It was further contended that the expulsion violated fundamental rights under Articles 14 (equality before law), 16 (equality of opportunity in employment) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.

Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Susmita Phukan Khaund dismissed the writ petition on March 25.

13-year delay, not entitled to fresh hearing

The Gauhati High Court refused to condone the delay of 13 years, 3 months and 7 days (4,845 days) in filing the plea, terming the explanation vague and unsupported by material.

The bench identified multiple lapses, including failure to contest proceedings before the tribunal, delay in seeking certified copies, and prolonged inaction even after obtaining the order. Reiterating settled principles, the Gauhati High Court observed, “Delay defeats equity… courts ought to be reluctant in exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who have slept over their rights.”

Addressing whether a declared foreigner is entitled to a fresh hearing before expulsion, the court held that no such right exists. It ruled that once a tribunal declares a person a foreigner, the process attains finality, and executing expulsion does not require further adjudication.

Granting another hearing, the court noted, would effectively amount to reopening settled proceedings.

Illegal immigration a global concern

The Gauhati High Court placed the issue within a broader context, citing Supreme Court observations in Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India that large-scale illegal migration into Assam amounts to “external aggression” and poses serious demographic and security concerns.

It noted that such challenges are not unique to India, observing that even the US is facing the impact of illegal immigrants, highlighting the global dimension of migration pressures.

Limited rights

The bench reiterated that a declared foreigner does not enjoy the full range of constitutional rights available to citizens. It held that the rights such as residence and movement are restricted to citizens and that foreigners are entitled only to the protection of life and liberty under Article 21.

The court also emphasised that the state has “absolute and unfettered” power to expel foreigners under Indian law.

“…the State has unfettered power to cause expulsion of a declared foreign national. Therefore, in the event a “declared foreign national” cannot be expelled due to any reason whatsoever, including the policy in force, then the only way open to the State would be to prevent a declared foreign national from getting employment, purchase land, marry Indian national, etc., perhaps by framing appropriate policy and/or by detaining such “declared foreign national” in the holding areas earmarked for the purpose,” the court said.

Expulsion versus deportation

Clarifying legal terminology, the Gauhati High Court distinguished between deportation (applicable to those who entered lawfully but overstayed) and expulsion (applicable to illegal entrants declared foreigners).

In this case, the petitioner’s father was held to fall squarely within the latter category. Rejecting the petitioner’s claims, the court held that no fundamental rights were violated, observing that extending constitutional protections meant for citizens to a declared foreigner would amount to granting undue privilege.

Final outcome

Dismissing the writ petition, the Gauhati High Court held that the challenge was barred by delay and laches and the tribunal’s declaration remained valid. It added that the expulsion order was lawful and enforceable.