In a significant order with wider implications for policing practices under the Foreigners Act and safeguarding the constitutional protection of liberty, the Bombay High Court on June 3, 2025, directed the immediate release of 18-year-old Ruksar Dadamiya Khan, who had been detained by the Mankhurd police’s Nirbhaya Cell in Mumbai following the deportation of her father on grounds of illegal migration from Bangladesh. The court held that the teenager’s continued custody—despite her birth in India and possession of valid Indian documents—was not required, especially when she was not herself the subject of any conclusive inquiry.
A vacation bench of Justices Dr. Neela Gokhale and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla passed the order in a writ petition filed by Ruksar and her two younger siblings, aged 16 and 8, seeking a writ of habeas corpus and protection against deportation or coercive state action in violation of due process. While the two younger children were handed over to their mother shortly after the petition was filed, the eldest daughter remained in custody at the Nirbhaya Cell of the Mankhurd Police Station, triggering judicial intervention. The High Court’s order not only underscores the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 but also reinforces that inquiries under the Foreigners Act, 1946 must be conducted with procedural fairness and sensitivity—particularly when the individuals in question are children or young adults born on Indian soil.
The petition had also sought to restrain the respondents—the Union of India, the State of Maharashtra, the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, the Senior Inspector of Police, Mankhurd Police Station, and the Foreigners Regional Registration Office—from detaining or deporting them without adhering to lawful procedure.
Family Background and Detention
The petitioners are the biological children of one Dadamiya Bardhyar Khan and Mariyam Khan. The mother, Mariyam, is an Indian citizen by birth, while the father, Dadamiya, had lived in India, worked as a cab driver, and was married to Mariyam. The petitioners contended that they were all born in India, held valid Indian birth certificates, and that both their parents had official Indian documents including ration cards and voter IDs.
Despite this, following a special police drive in May 2025 targeting suspected illegal foreign nationals, the Mankhurd police detained all three children and their father. While the two younger children were later released to their mother’s custody following the filing of the habeas corpus petition, Ruksar continued to be held at the Nirbhaya Cell of the Mankhurd Police Station pending an inquiry.
State’s Position: Inquiry under Foreigners Act
The respondents, represented by Advocate Manisha Jagtap (for the Union) and Additional Public Prosecutor Mahalakshmi Ganapathy (for the State), argued that the detention was lawful and necessitated by an ongoing investigation under the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Central Government Resolution dated May 2, 2025. The state placed on record a statement made by Dadamiya Khan during the inquiry, in which he allegedly admitted to being a Bangladeshi national who had entered India illegally via the Banafol border due to lack of employment in Bangladesh.
The Union and State further submitted that although the two minors had been released, Ruksar’s continued detention was required to establish her identity and citizenship as part of the broader inquiry.
Petitioners’ Stand: Indian by birth, documents ignored
Petitioners’ counsel, Advocate Siddha Pamecha, assisted by Advocate Raj Pani, vigorously opposed the detention, placing on record:
- Birth certificates of all three children, issued in India;
- Identity documents of Mariyam Khan, including her voter ID issued by the Election Commission of India;
- PAN card, ration card, and an alleged Indian passport held by Dadamiya Khan;
- Proof of residence in Mumbai.
They contended that Ruksar, having turned 18 only recently, was being unfairly targeted for her father’s alleged illegal status and that her detention violated constitutional guarantees under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) and applicable statutory protections under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 and related jurisprudence.
Court’s findings and ruling
After hearing both sides, the High Court noted that:
“Considering the ages of the Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 and also the age of Petitioner No.1 which is only 18 years, we do not find it necessary for the Petitioners to be detained in custody for the purpose of the inquiry, which is to be conducted.” (Para 9)
Accordingly, the court issued the following key directions:
- Immediate release: Petitioner No. 1, Ruksar Dadamiya Khan, shall be released forthwith from the custody of the Mankhurd police.
- No further custody without leave of court: Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, who were already released to their mother’s custody, “shall not be taken into custody again without prior permission of this Court.” (Para 10)
- Jurisdictional restraint: All three petitioners are barred from leaving the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court without express permission, and are to make themselves available to the police for the purpose of inquiry when summoned.
- Communication obligations: Ruksar and her mother, Mariyam Khan, are directed to furnish their residential address, mobile numbers, and any other contact details to the investigating officer.
- Inquiry into passport issuance: A one-page copy of Dadamiya Khan’s alleged Indian passport was also on record. The APP submitted that the passport might have been issued on the basis of forged documents. The court noted this submission and permitted the state to initiate an appropriate inquiry against the Regional Passport Office and any officials found negligent or complicit.
Broader legal and human rights concerns
Key legal issues highlighted in the above case are:
- Unlawful detention under Article 21 and the doctrine of proportionality.
- Procedural safeguards under the Foreigners Act and the requirement for quasi-judicial determination before deportation.
- Protection of minor children born in India under domestic and international legal standards.
- Importance of distinguishing individual citizenship from parental immigration history
This case has brought renewed attention to the use of the Foreigners Act, 1946, especially in cases involving minors and individuals born in India. There have been long standing warnings against the Act, which allows for executive inquiries into citizenship without judicial safeguards, must be read alongside Article 21, the right against arbitrary detention, and international child rights standards, especially where minors or mixed-nationality families are involved.
While the Bombay High Court order has brought relief to the Khan children, particularly Ruksar, the legal uncertainty surrounding their father’s nationality and the inquiry into their own citizenship status continues. The court has struck a balance between the state’s right to investigate and the individual’s right to liberty, due process, and dignity. The said ruling affirms a fundamental principle: the power of the state to question citizenship must be exercised lawfully, carefully, and without sacrificing the liberties of those—especially minors—who may well be Indian citizens by birth.
The complete order may be read here.
Related:
India: A deep dive into the legal obligations before “deportation”