The job of these courts is to identity and order the deportation (through the local police) of those so identified and confirmed as Bangladeshis. So when Anindita charged about in righteous indignation, seeking some very elementary facts such as the records of the IMDT, she found that even these were not available. ‘The lower tribunals,’ she found out, ‘do not prepare monthly or even yearly reports for the apex court, which is the Appellate Court at Guwahati.’ The lower courts do not even maintain figures of those acquitted or sentenced.

The IMDT was passed hastily in 1983 by the Lok Sabha as part of the Congress party’s bid to undermine the student movement in Assam. One of the main promotors of the legislation was Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, who supported it under the guise of protecting minority rights (read here Muslim rights, whether immigrant or ‘local’). Its very creation was an act of blatant discrimination: the act applies only to Assam and to no other part of the country. Should this be taken to mean that the government of the day believed that there were no illegal foreigners in other parts of the North East, not to speak of the rest of India? An instrument of discrimination, the IMDT needs to be removed without delay or compunction. A law that promotes discriminatory treatment is no law at all.

The IMDT has numerous clauses but the critical one is Clause 3 (1) C which states that the person who can be proceeded against as a foreigner is one who has entered India after 25 March 1971, and has done so without proper official documents.

Let’s walk through how the IMDT functions. Basically, there are eleven steps. The first action against a ‘Bangladeshi’ can be initiated after the police receives a written complaint, either from a government officer or a private citizen, questioning the nationality of a resident of the region. The inquiry begins under the supervision of a sub-inspector of police. This stage involves the filling of two forms, namely Form 1 and Form 2 that involve a deposit of ten rupees by the complainant who must live within the precincts of the local police station. The initial testimony of the accused as well as that of witnesses is recored here.

Next, the investigation report is submitted to a Select Committee comprising of the Superintendent of Police (SP) and the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO). The latter is usually a young person fresh out of university, fired with enthusiasm in his first, or at least, new posting, and not yet overcome by corruption and insensitivity.