Published on: 23 November, 2025 14:01 IST
The Sonitpur district administration has, for the first time since the Assam Cabinet approved the move earlier this year, invoked the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950, directing five individuals declared foreigners by a Foreigners’ Tribunal in 2025 to leave India within 24 hours.
The order, issued on Tuesday, applies to four women and one man. According to police officials, all five are currently untraceable. Local residents say they have not lived in the area for more than a decade, and their present whereabouts remain unknown.
The development comes at a time when Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma has been pushing for the revival of the 1950 Act, arguing that it offers a more direct route for expelling individuals suspected of being illegal migrants.
In June, he said the government intended to use the Act to “push back” into Bangladesh those whom district officials “prima facie” consider foreigners, without relying solely on the existing Foreigners’ Tribunal mechanism.
What Is the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950?
The Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 was enacted by the Union government on March 1, 1950, following persistent demands from the Assam administration for stronger measures to regulate cross-border migration from East Pakistan in the turbulent years after Partition. Citizenship and immigration fell under the Union List, but Assam sought legal tools to address a growing political crisis over demographic changes.
The original draft of the law was titled the “Undesirable Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act,” a reflection of the political concerns of the period. The Act empowered the Central government and any officers it authorised to order the expulsion of any person who ordinarily resided outside India and whose presence in Assam was deemed detrimental to the interests of the general public or to any section of society, including Scheduled Tribes.
Importantly, the Act did not apply to refugees or individuals who entered India because of civil disturbances or the fear of such disturbances in East Pakistan.
Historically, the Act was implemented only briefly. At the time, parts of Lower Assam witnessed communal violence, leading to the flight of anywhere between 40,000 and one lakh Muslims to East Pakistan. This turmoil created complications in enforcing the law, particularly because many Bengali origin Muslims being asked to leave were long-standing residents of Assam. Historian Arupjyoti Saikia records that one such expulsion order targeted an old resident of an Upper Assam town and asked him to leave within three days. The incident prompted Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru to intervene.
On April 10, 1950, two days after signing the Nehru–Liaquat Pact with Pakistan’s Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan to secure minority rights in both countries, Nehru wrote to Assam Chief Minister Gopinath Bordoloi advising an immediate halt to action under the Act.
He warned that continuing expulsions would deepen communal tensions and jeopardise the effort to stabilise conditions in Bengal and Assam. Following Nehru’s intervention, the use of the Act was largely discontinued. Historical accounts suggest only a few hundred people were ever affected by it.
The Assam government’s revival of the Act today is rooted in its broader effort to tighten mechanisms for identifying and expelling alleged illegal migrants, in a state where migration has been a central political issue for decades. The Assam Accord of 1985, the updating of the National Register of Citizens, and the functioning of Foreigners’ Tribunals all form part of the state’s complex legal framework on citizenship.
Why Is the IEAA Being Invoked Again Now?
The government argues that the 1950 Act allows faster expulsion, especially for individuals already declared foreigners. However, legal experts point out that the law predates India’s constitutional protections and offers none of the procedural safeguards present in the tribunal-based system. They warn that its use could face scrutiny on grounds of due process and fundamental rights.
The Sonitpur orders therefore mark a significant shift in Assam’s approach to immigration enforcement. With the five individuals missing, the immediate impact of the directives is uncertain, but the decision to invoke a long-dormant law raises questions about its constitutionality, practicality and its place within the state’s broader legal architecture.
How the courts respond, if challenged, and whether other districts follow suit will determine whether the IEAA becomes a new tool in Assam’s ongoing efforts to manage migration or remains a symbolic gesture rooted in the politics of the moment.