The Supreme Court on Wednesday sternly reprimanded the Assam government for its handling of the detention of 270 foreigners at the Matia transit camp, citing a “defective” affidavit that failed to justify the detentions or outline steps towards deportation. Justices Abhay S Oka and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh expressed significant dissatisfaction with the state’s response, compelling the Assam Chief Secretary to appear via video-conferencing during the next hearing to clarify the issues raised.
The court had previously allowed the state six weeks, starting December 9, to furnish a detailed affidavit explaining the rationale behind the detentions and the subsequent actions taken toward deporting the detained foreign nationals. However, the response submitted was deemed inadequate by the bench, highlighting a “gross violation” of the court’s orders.
“The affidavit does not give any justification for detaining… steps taken to deport are not set out. This is a gross violation of orders of this court. We direct the chief secretary to remain present through video-conferencing and explain the non-compliance,” the bench articulated during the session.
In defense, the state’s counsel argued that the detentions followed declarations of foreign status by tribunals and outlined the existing mechanisms for deporting illegal migrants. However, the court questioned the ongoing detentions given that the deportation processes had not been initiated.
The session took a contentious turn when the Assam government’s counsel insisted that the affidavit remain confidential and sealed, a request that puzzled the justices. “This shows that the state does not want to come clean. Tell us what is confidential in the affidavit?” the bench queried. The state’s lawyer responded that the affidavit included addresses and could inadvertently expose sensitive information to the media.
Despite agreeing to keep the affidavit sealed, the bench expressed preliminary disagreement with the claim of confidentiality, indicating a transparency issue with the state’s handling of the situation.
