The Gauhati High Court has asked the state government to apprise it of the steps that have been taken to set up detention centres outside jail premises..The model manual for detention centres provides that they will be set up outside jail premises. If suitable accommodations are not available, the State Government has the option of hiring private buildings for the purpose..The petitioners in this case questioned the action of the State of Assam in declaring a part of the existing jail premises in Goalpara, Kokrajhar, Jorhat, Silchar, Dibrugarh and Tezpur as detention centres for persons awaiting their deportation/repatriation and whose movements were required to be restricted..Expressing displeasure at the action of the state government, Justice Achintya Malla Bujor Barua said more than 10 years had gone by since a part of the jail premises in Goalpara, Kokrajhar and Silchar had been declared detention centres..Certainly, a period of more than 10 years could not be understood to be a temporary arrangement. Even in respect of Jorhat, Dibrugarh and Tezpur a period of five years was almost over, which also again could not be strictly said to be a temporary arrangement, the judge said..The Court also referred to two letters which the Union Home Ministry had sent on March 7, 2012, and September 10, 2014, to all the state governments and union territories which inter alia had provided that such category of persons be released from jail immediately and be kept at an appropriate place outside the jail premises with restricted movement, pending repatriation..The MHA letter had taken note of the Supreme Court's direction that if such persons could not be repatriated, they could not be confined in prison and be deprived of basic human rights and human dignity..After perusing the letters of the Union Home Ministry, the High Court opined that "from the provision of the communication, it is discernible that the State Government should set up sufficient numbers of detention centres/holding centres/camps for restricting the movement of illegal migrants/foreign nationals and the State Government may decide as to how many number of detention centres that are required to be set up in the State"..The High Court took note of Clause 5(5) of the communication dated September 10, 2014 which provided that pending acquisition of lands and construction of buildings, the State Governments/UT Administrations may consider hiring suitable accommodation for the purpose and in case of non- availability of government buildings, the State Governments may look to hire private buildings, subject to the production of a non-availability certificate and rent assessment by CPWD/PWD."It is discernible that the detention centres must be outside the jail premises and secondly pending any acquisition of lands and construction of buildings, the State Government may find suitable accommodations for the purpose and if government buildings are not available, the State Government may look for hiring private buildings for the purpose", the High Court said..State Government sought to rely upon the letter of the MHA dated September 7, 2018, wherein it was provided that in case the setting up of such detention centres/holding centres/camps outside jail premises was pending, a specific area in the jail premises had to be earmarked by the State Government for housing such foreign nationals/illegal migrants awaiting deportation as purely a temporary measure..The Court, however, said considering that it has been more than ten years since the temporary arrangement, it could not be accepted that the Government still relied MHA's letter dated September 7, 2018, to project the case that it would be permissible to declare a part of the jail premises to be detention centres..Read Order.http://theleaflet.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Detention-Centers-07.10.2020.pdf
The Gauhati High Court has asked the state government to apprise it of the steps that have been taken to set up detention centres outside jail premises..The model manual for detention centres provides that they will be set up outside jail premises. If suitable accommodations are not available, the State Government has the option of hiring private buildings for the purpose..The petitioners in this case questioned the action of the State of Assam in declaring a part of the existing jail premises in Goalpara, Kokrajhar, Jorhat, Silchar, Dibrugarh and Tezpur as detention centres for persons awaiting their deportation/repatriation and whose movements were required to be restricted..Expressing displeasure at the action of the state government, Justice Achintya Malla Bujor Barua said more than 10 years had gone by since a part of the jail premises in Goalpara, Kokrajhar and Silchar had been declared detention centres..Certainly, a period of more than 10 years could not be understood to be a temporary arrangement. Even in respect of Jorhat, Dibrugarh and Tezpur a period of five years was almost over, which also again could not be strictly said to be a temporary arrangement, the judge said..The Court also referred to two letters which the Union Home Ministry had sent on March 7, 2012, and September 10, 2014, to all the state governments and union territories which inter alia had provided that such category of persons be released from jail immediately and be kept at an appropriate place outside the jail premises with restricted movement, pending repatriation..The MHA letter had taken note of the Supreme Court's direction that if such persons could not be repatriated, they could not be confined in prison and be deprived of basic human rights and human dignity..After perusing the letters of the Union Home Ministry, the High Court opined that "from the provision of the communication, it is discernible that the State Government should set up sufficient numbers of detention centres/holding centres/camps for restricting the movement of illegal migrants/foreign nationals and the State Government may decide as to how many number of detention centres that are required to be set up in the State"..The High Court took note of Clause 5(5) of the communication dated September 10, 2014 which provided that pending acquisition of lands and construction of buildings, the State Governments/UT Administrations may consider hiring suitable accommodation for the purpose and in case of non- availability of government buildings, the State Governments may look to hire private buildings, subject to the production of a non-availability certificate and rent assessment by CPWD/PWD."It is discernible that the detention centres must be outside the jail premises and secondly pending any acquisition of lands and construction of buildings, the State Government may find suitable accommodations for the purpose and if government buildings are not available, the State Government may look for hiring private buildings for the purpose", the High Court said..State Government sought to rely upon the letter of the MHA dated September 7, 2018, wherein it was provided that in case the setting up of such detention centres/holding centres/camps outside jail premises was pending, a specific area in the jail premises had to be earmarked by the State Government for housing such foreign nationals/illegal migrants awaiting deportation as purely a temporary measure..The Court, however, said considering that it has been more than ten years since the temporary arrangement, it could not be accepted that the Government still relied MHA's letter dated September 7, 2018, to project the case that it would be permissible to declare a part of the jail premises to be detention centres..Read Order.http://theleaflet.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Detention-Centers-07.10.2020.pdf
