EVICTION OF ALLEGED BANGLADESHI MIGRANTS IN ASSAM (2025): A CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL ANALYSIS

Author: Ritika Singh  College: Jaipur National University

ABSTRACT

Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma led one of Assam’s largest eviction campaigns in 2025 with the goal of eliminating alleged illegal Bangladeshi migrants and removing encroachments from government, forest, and grazing lands. The State defended these measures as legitimate enforcement of environmental preservation, land administration, and immigration control. Nonetheless, the evictions spurred extensive discussion about humanitarian implications, equality before the law, citizenship determination, and due process. This article uses human rights standards, statutory frameworks, judicial precedents, evidentiary procedures, and constitutional concepts to critically analyze the 2025 eviction effort. It contends that although the State has the sovereign right to control immigration and reclaim public land, this power must be used within the constraints of procedural justice, constitutional morality, and the dignity of those impacted.

TO THE POINT

In order to remove alleged illegal Bangladeshi migrants and remove encroachments from forest land, grazing reserves, and other government property, the Assam government launched extensive eviction drives in 2025. Thousands of families, many of whom had lived on the property for decades and relied on it for housing and a living, were uprooted as a result of these operations. The Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950, land and forest legislation, NRC-related data, and the conclusions of Foreigners’ Tribunals to identify non-citizens and illegal inhabitants were used by the State to justify the evictions.

However, legal experts and civil society organizations have criticized the eviction drives. Serious concerns about discrimination were raised by the purported arbitrary and selective targeting of Bengali-speaking Muslim groups. Critics noted that proper citizenship status verification, sufficient notice, and hearing opportunities were frequently lacking. The humanitarian effects of the evictions were made worse by the lack of effective rehabilitation and resettlement programs.

According to Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, which protect equality before the law and the right to a dignified life, these activities create significant constitutional issues. The conflict between the state’s right to control immigration and land use and its duty to guarantee due process, proportionality, and humane treatment of those impacted is therefore highlighted by the 2025 evictions.

PROOF

The Assamese eviction campaign of 2025 was a continuation of a strategic approach that the state government had been pursuing since 2021, rather than an isolated or abrupt administrative move. But what set the 2025 phase apart were the operations’ unparalleled scope, intensity, and potent political messaging, all of which signaled a dramatic increase in enforcement. Numerous districts, including Golaghat, Goalpara, Nagaon, Biswanath, Sonitpur, and Barpeta, conducted eviction drives. Over 10,000 bighas of land were reclaimed from forest reserves, pasture areas, and other types of government property during these activities. Homes, mosques, and small businesses were among the thousands of residential and non-residential buildings that were destroyed. As a result, entire towns were essentially destroyed, leaving families without a place to live and many of them in dangerous temporary shelters.

Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma’s Assam government defended the evictions by claiming that they were necessary to keep the state safe from illegal immigration and land occupancy. The Chief Minister openly declared that Assam’s natural balance, indigenous rights, and demographic stability were all seriously threatened by illegal migration. The official narrative claims that encroachments on grazing and forest areas threatened national security in addition to depleting natural resources. The administration insisted that only people lacking legitimate land titles or legally recognized citizenship credentials were targeted, and that the eviction campaigns were carried out fully in compliance with the law once notifications were issued. It further asserted that the operations were based only on legality, not on ethnicity or religion, and that they were religion-neutral.

However, a more nuanced and unsettling image was presented by independent reports, media inquiries, and accounts from civil society. Despite not having officially recognized land titles, several evictees claimed to have lived on the property for decades and to have some sort of paperwork. Numerous households claimed that there was no genuine opportunity for a hearing or that the eviction notifications were insufficient. Resettlement and rehabilitation programs were said to be either nonexistent or woefully inadequate. Most importantly, Bengali-speaking Muslims made up a disproportionately large part of those displaced, which heightened accusations of discrimination, selective targeting, and arbitrariness and raised grave constitutional and human rights issues.

LEGAL JARGON

The constitutional and legal framework controlling state action must be taken into consideration when analyzing Assam’s 2025 eviction campaigns. The State is required by Article 14 of the Constitution to act in a non-arbitrary and reasonable manner, based on discernible differences that have a logical connection to the desired outcome. The promise of equality before the law may be violated by any eviction that specifically targets a community or linguistic group without applying universal legal standards. Therefore, under Article 14, allegations of community-specific evictions raise grave constitutional problems.

The Supreme Court has construed Article 21, which protects the right to life and personal liberty, broadly to encompass the right to subsistence, shelter, and a dignified living. These aspects of Article 21 are directly violated by forced evictions that occur without sufficient notice, a chance for a hearing, proportionality, or real rehabilitation. The constitutional requirement of fair, just, and reasonable procedure is compromised when large eviction operations lack humane safeguards.

Article 300A safeguards people from being deprived of their property unless authorized by law, even when the right to property is no longer a basic right. This means that evictions cannot be carried out by executive order or coercion; instead, they must closely adhere to established procedures.

The Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 gives the State the legal authority to ban immigrants whose presence is deemed to be harmful to Assam’s interests. Nevertheless, this authority is limited and must be used in accordance with constitutional protections. In a similar vein, the Foreigners Act of 1946 states that Foreigners’ Tribunals alone have the authority to determine whether an individual is a foreigner; the executive cannot make this assessment. Legal adjudication is required since the Citizenship Act, 1955, specifically Section 6A, recognizes March 24, 1971, as the deadline for Assamese citizenship. Lastly, eviction must adhere to the principles of notice, hearing, and rehabilitation even though land and forest regulations allow the removal of encroachments.

CASE LAWS


1. Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005)
The Supreme Court affirmed the necessity of strict controls over illegal migration into Assam and recognized it as a major threat to national security. Due process is crucial, nevertheless, because the Court did not permit arbitrary or illegal State action.

2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
In this case it was held that evictions without notice or hearing are forbidden by the Court’s ruling that any process that restricts an individual’s freedom must be fair, equitable, and reasonable.

3. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)
In this case it was found that even pavement dwellers cannot be evicted without a fair process and extended Article 21 to encompass the right to livelihood.

4. State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar (2011)
The Court emphasized that the State cannot reclaim property arbitrarily and must act in accordance with the law.


CONCLUSION

The Assamese eviction drive in 2025 represents a significant constitutional turning point where people’s fundamental rights and the state’s broad powers collide. The State certainly has the capacity to control immigration, eliminate illegal encroachments, and safeguard public and natural resources, but these authorities are not unrestricted. Executive action must be legitimate, reasonable, proportionate, non-discriminatory, and consistent with human dignity, according to the Indian Constitution. Any deviation from these guidelines runs the risk of turning lawful government into capricious state action.

The propensity to designate people as “illegal Bangladeshis” in the absence of a definitive legal ruling is a significant issue brought on by the eviction campaign. In India, citizenship is a legal status that can only be determined by statutory procedures like judicial review and Foreigners’ Tribunals. The rule of law is undermined and the constitutional principle of equality before the law under Article 14 is violated when suspicion or administrative presumption is treated as guilt. Furthermore, Article 21, which safeguards not only life and personal liberty but also the right to live with dignity, shelter, and livelihood, is directly violated by evictions that occur without sufficient notice, a chance for a hearing, or genuine rehabilitation.

Therefore, a strategy for immigration restriction and removal that complies with the constitution must be based on a few fundamental protections. These include competent tribunals’ prior decision-making, clear and consistent criteria for evidence, efficient judicial supervision, and the humanitarian rehabilitation and resettlement of displaced people. Avoiding politically heated or communal speech that could stigmatize entire communities and widen social divides is equally crucial. In a constitutional democracy, the justice, legality, and humanity of the procedures used to wield power ultimately determine the legitimacy of state action rather than the harshness of enforcement. 

FAQS

1. Are the 2025 Assam evictions legal?
Yes, provided that appropriate process and statutory authority are followed. It is unconstitutional to evict someone arbitrarily.

2. Can a person be evicted merely for being suspected as Bangladeshi?
No. Foreigners’ Tribunals or courts must decide citizenship status.

3. Does eviction mean loss of citizenship?
No, citizenship can only be determined legally; eviction is related to land occupation.

4. Which constitutional rights are most affected?
Articles 14 (equality), 21 (life and dignity), and 300A (property).