'Assam Faces a Demographic Invasion': Gauhati HC

The Gauhati High Court has observed that Assam is facing a “silent and invidious demographic invasion” due to unabated illegal migration from Bangladesh, describing the phenomenon as “external aggression” and upholding the State’s absolute authority to expel declared foreign nationals even if deportation is not possible.

A division bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund made the remarks while dismissing a habeas corpus petition filed by one Rejiya Khatun, whose husband, Majibar Rahman @ Majibar Sheikh, had been declared a foreign national by the Foreigners’ Tribunal at Kajalgaon, Chirang, in July 2019.

Khatun had alleged that her husband was re-arrested by the Kajalgaon police in May 2025 without being served any arrest memo or grounds of arrest, despite complying with bail conditions after his earlier release in 2021. She sought his production before the court, a medical examination, and directions restraining his deportation.

Rejecting the plea, the bench ruled that once a person is declared a foreign national under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, such a person does not enjoy the fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens under Articles 19 or 21 of the Constitution, except the limited protection of life under lawful process.

The declared foreign national cannot claim any fundamental right to reside, move freely, or carry on any trade or vocation in India, the court said, relying on Supreme Court judgments including Hans Muller of Nurenburg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail (1955) and Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005).

Citing Hans Muller, the bench reaffirmed that the Central Government holds “absolute and unfettered discretion” to expel foreigners from Indian territory. “The State has unfettered power to cause expulsion of a declared foreign national,” the court stated, clarifying that such action cannot be equated with an arrest under the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

In a detailed historical account, the bench referred to the Supreme Court’s observations in Sarbananda Sonowal, where the influx of illegal migrants from Bangladesh into Assam was described as “external aggression.” The High Court said this demographic change has serious implications for the State’s unity and internal security.

Quoting from reports cited in the Sonowal judgment, including that of former Assam Governor Lt. Gen. S.K. Sinha, the bench noted that the continued inflow of illegal migrants “threatens to reduce the Assamese people to a minority in their own State” and could have “disastrous strategic and economic consequences".

It also referred to former Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s writings in Eastern Pakistan: Its Population and Economics, which envisioned that a prosperous East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) would require Assam’s resources for its expansion. The court said these references underline the scale and intent of the demographic changes now unfolding in the region.

Moreover, court criticised what it described as “misinformation warfare” by sections of the media projecting Assam’s actions against illegal migrants as religious persecution. “It is perhaps a wrong perception… projecting that a religious persecution is going on in the State of Assam,” the order stated, terming such claims “misinformation warfare carried out by persons having vested interests against the Country in general and the State of Assam in particular.”

The bench drew a clear distinction between deportation and expulsion. Deportation, it said, applies to persons who entered India lawfully but later overstayed, while expulsion refers to removal of those who entered illegally. In the case of Assam, the court held, declared foreign nationals fall in the latter category and may be expelled even if Bangladesh refuses to accept them.

“In the event a declared foreign national cannot be expelled due to any reason… the only way open to the State would be to prevent such a person from obtaining employment, purchasing land, or marrying an Indian national,” the court observed, suggesting policy mechanisms to restrict their civic participation.

Holding that the petitioner’s husband’s custody was lawful, the bench dismissed the habeas corpus plea, clearing the way for the State to proceed with his expulsion. “There shall be no bar for the State to take steps for expulsion of the declared foreign national,” the court concluded.

Case Title: Rejiya Khatun vs The Union of India and Others

Order Date: October 24, 2025

Bench: Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund