Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih

Date of Order: May 22, 2025

A system on trial

In a powerful assertion of personal liberty over procedural inertia, the Supreme Court of India intervened to grant bail to Lakshya Tawar, a man whose plea for release had been adjourned an astonishing 27 times by the Allahabad High Court. Having already spent over four years in detention, Tawar’s case became a flashpoint for judicial delay. The apex court’s decision was not a commentary on the merits of the criminal allegations against Tawar but a sharp rebuke of a system that allowed a bail hearing—a matter of fundamental rights—to languish indefinitely. “In matters of personal liberty,” the bench led by Chief Justice Gavaideclared in its order, “the High Courts are not expected to keep the matter pending for such a long time and do nothing, except for adjourning from time to time.”^[1] The ruling serves as a critical case study on the judiciary’s role as the ultimate guardian of Article 21 and the dire consequences when procedural delays effectively negate the right to a timely hearing.

The factual background: A labyrinth of deferrals

Lakshya Tawar was arrested, facing serious charges of cheating, forgery, criminal conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code, and corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act. His bail application was filed in the Allahabad High Court.

What followed was not a swift adjudication but a cycle of repeated deferrals. Over the course of his plea, the matter was adjourned 27 times. During the proceedings, the High Court took note of Tawar’s “long criminal history of thirty-three cases” and, in its order of March 20, 2025, adjourned the case for another two weeks. It directed the trial court to first record the evidence of the complainant before it would reconsider the bail plea. While this might appear as a measure of due diligence, for a man already incarcerated for four years, it represented yet another hurdle in a seemingly endless procedural maze. It was this pattern of delay that propelled the case to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s intervention: A decisive rebuke

On May 22, 2025, the Supreme Court expressed its unequivocal disapproval. “How can the high court adjourn a bail hearing 27 times in a matter related to personal liberty?” Chief Justice Gavai pointedly asked. The Court noted that it would “normally not have entertained the matter” challenging adjournments, but the “peculiar facts and circumstances” of this case, namely the extraordinary number of deferrals, demanded an exception.

The Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail was based on a confluence of factors:

1. The Egregious Delay: The 27 adjournments were the primary catalyst, which the Court viewed as a de facto denial of justice.
2. Prolonged Incarceration: Tawar had already been imprisoned for over four years.
3. Fulfilment of High Court’s Condition: The complainant’s evidence—the very reason for the High Court’s last adjournment—had since been recorded.

Finding the High Court’s inaction indefensible, the Supreme Court directly granted bail to Tawar, rendering the application pending before the Allahabad High Court “infructuous.” By doing so, it sent a powerful signal that procedural failings impinging on fundamental rights would not be tolerated.

Upholding the spirit of Article 21

This case is a potent illustration of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees that no person shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty “except according to procedure established by law.” The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence, notably in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, has established that this procedure must be “just, fair, and reasonable.” The right to a speedy trial, articulated in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, is a cornerstone of this principle.

The Tawar judgment extends this logic forcefully to pre-trial proceedings. Indefinite detention caused by the repeated adjournment of a bail hearing is a clear violation of fair procedure. By intervening, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that judicial discretion in managing dockets is not absolute and cannot be exercised in a manner that erodes fundamental rights. The maxim “justice delayed is justice denied” is rarely more applicable than when an individual’s liberty is suspended in a state of indefinite judicial limbo. However, whether the Supreme Court and judiciary as a whole will apply this standard in dealing with the delayed bail for political prisoners, especially in the context of cases like Umar Khalid’s is a question that is yet to be answered.

(The author is part of the legal research team of the organisation)

^[1] Para 5, Lakshya Tawar v. CBI[SLP(Crl.) No. 5480/2025

Related:

“Illegal detention cannot be allowed even for a minute”: Gauhati HC orders release of Goalpara man picked up despite complying with bail conditions

SC’s denial of bail to journalist Rupesh Singh once again showcases how the Court looks at bail under UAPA, with varying consistency

The post SC intervenes for personal liberty after HC adjourns a bail application 27 times! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On June 16, the Gauhati High Court declined to grant interim protection in the petition filed by Torap Ali, but directed the Standing Counsel for the Foreigners Tribunal to obtain a verification report from the concerned police station regarding whether the two detained persons — Abu Bakkar and Akbar Ali — were complying with the weekly reporting conditions of their COVID-era bail prior to being picked up again by Assam Border Police on May 24, 2025.

This crucial direction, focusing on attendance verification, may determine the legality of their continued detention — especially if it is shown that the men were fulfilling the conditions set out in their 2020–21 bail orders issued under the Supreme Court’s directions. The said order was delivered by the Division Bench of Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Malasri Nandi during the third hearing of the said matter.

As the matter was taken up, the Standing Counsel for the Foreigners Tribunal requested two additional days to file the State’s affidavit, explaining that instructions were awaited. The Court granted this request and listed the matter for June 20, 2025.

The petitioner’s counsel requested that the Court clarify that no deportation or further adverse action should take place until the affidavit is filed and the matter heard. However, the Court declined to grant protection, after learning that the FT declaration had earlier been challenged and dismissed, and that no fresh challenge had been filed prior to the detention. The Court observed that it could only grant such protection in cases whether the foreigner status was being challenged.

Despite refusing interim protection, the Court gave a key procedural direction: it instructed the FT counsel to obtain particulars from the concerned police station regarding whether the detainees, who were earlier released on bail, had been complying with their reporting obligations.

This police verification is now central to the next phase of the case — as bail compliance under judicially issued orders may raise serious questions about whether the re-arrest and continued detention were in violation of due process.

Why attendance matters?

Both Abu Bakkar and Akbar Ali, residents of Bhukuradia village, Kamrup district, had been declared foreigners by FT No. 4, Kamrup in 2017. They were subsequently detained and later granted bail during the COVID-19 pandemic, after having completed over two years in custody — under guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu WP(C) 1/2020 and adopted by the Gauhati High Court.

Their bail conditions required them to report weekly to the local police station — a compliance regime that many of the now detainees have followed for years without breach.

In the petition filed by their nephew Torap Ali, it was asserted that both men had been faithfully reporting to the police station every week, and that there had been no cancellation of bail or fresh order of detention prior to May 24 — the date they were suddenly picked up from their residence at night by Border Police without any arrest memo or warrant.

If the police attendance register shows that they were reporting as required up to May 2025, the State may face questions on whether the re-arrest was in complete violation of lawful bail protections, and whether procedural safeguards under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution were ignored.

It is essential to note that the High Court’s direction in Torap Ali case to verify police station attendance mirrors the decisive factor that led to relief in the Mozida Begum v. Union of India and ors case that was issued by the Gauhati High Court in the same day. In that matter, the detainee — Hachinur @ Hasinur — was released from custody after the Gauhati High Court found that he had been complying with the weekly police reporting conditions of his COVID-era bail. The Court held that re-arresting a bail-compliant individual without cancelling the earlier order was “expressly illegal.” That case hinged on the submission of a signed attendance sheet from the local police station, which the bench treated as conclusive proof of compliance. In Torap Ali, the Court has now taken the first step in that same direction — ordering the FT counsel to obtain a similar verification report from the concerned police station. Whether the detainees were regularly reporting may prove equally pivotal in determining the legality of their continued detention. (Details of the Moziba Begum case may be read here.)

Summary of prior proceedings

1. May 28, 2025

The matter was first mentioned; FT counsel stated they had not received the pleadings. The Court adjourned the matter to the next day.

The order may be read here.

2. May 29, 2025

Petitioner informed the Court that Abu Bakkar and Akbar Ali had been re-arrested on May 24, despite being on bail and complying with conditions. The Court sought information from the State regarding their custody status.

The order may be read here.

3. June 4, 2025

The FT counsel submitted that both men were now lodged at Kokrajhar Holding Centre. The Court:

• Granted family visitation rights;
• Allowed the petitioner to obtain the detainees’ signatures on vakalatnamas;
• Directed the State to file an affidavit explaining the basis of arrest and detention by June 16.

The order may be read here.

4. June 16, 2025

At the hearing on June 16, no affidavit had been filed by the State, despite the Court’s June 4 direction. The FT counsel sought an extension of two days. Crucially, the Court directed that details regarding police station attendance must be obtained and submitted, especially since the bail orders were conditional upon weekly reporting. The police station records may now become central to the Court’s evaluation of whether:

• The re-arrest was lawful;
• Bail conditions were violated;
• Or whether, as seen in other recent cases, procedural norms were bypassed without basis.

The matter will next be heard on June 20, 2025.

Related:

Gauhati HC questions legal basis of re-detention of bail-compliant detainee, orders verification of police attendance record

Seeking sanctuary, facing scrutiny: Why India must revisit its approach to the displaced

Gauhati HC: Union government admits Samsul Ali was handed over to BSF, Court grants family visitation rights if not yet deported

Holding centres, missing memos, and silent transfers: Gauhati HC hears 5 petitions filed by families of Bengali-speaking Muslim detainees in Assam

India: A deep dive into the legal obligations before “deportation”

CJP submits supplementary memo to NHRC with survivor and family testimonies on Assam’s expulsions of Bengali-speaking Muslims

The post Gauhati HC directs verification of police records to see if detained men were following bail conditions before re-arrest appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Nearly three weeks after her sudden and unannounced detention, on June 16, the Gauhati High Court granted visitation rights and legal access to Doyjan Bibi, the woman at the centre of the writ petition filed by her husband, Abdul Rejjak, under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.

The petition alleged that Doyjan Bibi had been picked up from her home in Gauripur, Dhubri district, on the night of May 24, 2025, without any warrant, arrest memo, or subsequent disclosure of her whereabouts. Since her detention, the family had received no formal communication regarding where she was being held — prompting the filing of a petition to trace her location and challenge the legality of her custody.

During the hearing, the counsel for the Foreigner’s Tribunal (FT) submitted that he had received verbal instructions over phone indicating that Doyjan Bibi is currently lodged at the Kokrajhar Holding Centre.

The bench comprising Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Malasri Nandi recorded the statement and passed an order:

• Allowing the petitioner, Abdul Rejjak, along with one family member, to visit Doyjan Bibi at the holding centre;
• Permitting the signature of the detained person on the vakalatnama, to facilitate proper legal representation in the ongoing petition;
• Listing the matter again on June 25, 2025, for further hearing.

Prior hearing (June 9): Revival of FT order cited, no location disclosed

At the earlier hearing on June 9, the FT counsel had informed the Court that Doyjan Bibi had been declared a foreigner by FT No. 4, Dhubri in 2017, in an ex-parte proceeding. That order had been set aside by a coordinate bench of the Gauhati High Court in 2021, on the condition that the detainee reappear before the FT. It was submitted that since she failed to appear, the original FT opinion had been revived, and her COVID-era bail cancelled.

However, during that hearing, the State had been unable to provide any official information about where Doyjan Bibi was being held, or under what authority she had been taken into custody. The Court had deferred substantive consideration of relief but sought information regarding her custody status.

Details of the hearing may be read here.

June 16 order: Limited relief, awaiting full disclosure

On June 16, the State could not provide any written record of detention or produce Doyjan Bibi in court. The only submission made was verbal — a telephonic update from the FT counsel — that she is presently in Kokrajhar Holding Centre.

The Court, while refraining from adjudicating on the legality of the detention at this stage, treated the FT counsel’s statement as sufficient basis to allow limited visitation and legal access.

The matter is now listed for further hearing on June 25.

Doyjan Bibi’s detention falls within a pattern of cases involving individuals:

• Declared foreigners by ex parte FT orders;
• Later released on bail following more than two years in detention, under Supreme Court directions during COVID-19;
• And subsequently re-arrested — allegedly without fresh legal orders, warrant, or procedural safeguards — in May 2025, often at night and without notice to family.

Gauhati HC order can be read below.

Related:

“Illegal detention not even for a minute”: Gauhati HC orders immediate release of bail-compliant detainee in Assam

Gauhati HC questions legal basis of re-detention of bail-compliant detainee, orders verification of police attendance record

Seeking sanctuary, facing scrutiny: Why India must revisit its approach to the displaced

Gauhati HC: Union government admits Samsul Ali was handed over to BSF, Court grants family visitation rights if not yet deported

Holding centres, missing memos, and silent transfers: Gauhati HC hears 5 petitions filed by families of Bengali-speaking Muslim detainees in Assam

India: A deep dive into the legal obligations before “deportation”

CJP submits supplementary memo to NHRC with survivor and family testimonies on Assam’s expulsions of Bengali-speaking Muslims

The post Gauhati HC allows family visit after state confirms Doyjan Bibi’s detention in Kokrajhar centre appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The High Court bench comprising Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Malasri Nandi made clear that “illegal detention cannot be allowed even for a minute,” and refused the State’s request for an adjournment, stating that failure to obtain timely instructions could not be a ground to delay liberty.

This order came after three rounds of hearings in the habeas corpus petition filed by Mozida Begum, the detainee’s mother, who had approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging her son’s sudden re-arrest and incommunicado detention. In the previous hearings on June 6 and June 11, the Court had established that:

• The detainee was being held at the Kokrajhar Holding Centre;
• The Court had stayed any deportation;
• His attendance at Goalpara Police Station on May 5, 12, and 19 had been recorded and submitted as Annexure 4;
• The Goalpara PS was directed to verify the attendance sheet, and the State was directed to respond.

June 16, 2025: Court orders immediate release

Today, at the third hearing of the case, the State had sought an adjournment, saying instructions had not yet been received. The counsel requested the matter be listed on Wednesday (June 18). But the bench firmly declined, stating that the liberty of a person cannot be delayed for want of bureaucratic coordination.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate A.R. Sikdar objected to the request for adjournment. He submitted that:

• The purpose of the hearing was to decide on the release of a person already granted bail;
• The detenu had complied with every condition laid out in the 2021 bail order;
• His arrest and continued detention violated the earlier High Court order, as well as Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution;
• The writ petition challenging the FT order remained pending, and hence no finality could be claimed in terms of nationality or removal proceedings.

He asked the Court to order Hasinur’s immediate release from custody, arguing that continued detention was both unconstitutional and unjustified.

The bench responded with unequivocal concern for the deprivation of liberty: “We are releasing him because this will be illegal detention. Not even for a moment we will wait.”

Justice Surana made clear that the Court would not delay protection of liberty merely due to bureaucratic inaction: “You should have gotten instructions if you wanted. We will not even wait till 2 o’clock. Once there is bail, if they do not give you instructions, it is their lookout.”

The Court further stated that if the State truly believed there were grounds to re-arrest the detenu, it should have moved an interlocutory application (IA) to cancel the bail or obtained a fresh judicial order. Without that, the State had no authority to hold him.

“If you wanted to arrest him after the COVID bail, you could have moved an I.A. Let the State move an application for recall if they want. We’ll hear it at 2. But right now, we are granting bail.”

Based on the above arguments, the Court stated that:

• That bail had been granted and remained valid;
• That attendance had been recorded and verified;
• That no cancellation of bail or new proceedings had been initiated;
• And that continued detention was “expressly illegal.”

Order issued by the Court: The Court dictated the following in its written order:

• Recalled that bail had been granted to Hasinur on June 7, 2021, by a division bench under the Supreme Court’s suo moto COVID-19 bail guidelines;
• Noted that the bail order required weekly reporting, which the petitioner had complied with, supported by Annexure 4, a police attendance sheet verified by Goalpara PS;
• Reaffirmed that the FT opinion declaring him a foreigner remains under judicial challenge;
• Emphasised that no cancellation of bail had occurred, and that no fresh detention order had been passed;
• Held that the continued detention of Hasinur was “expressly illegal”.

“It becomes the duty of the Court to protect the fundamental rights of the detained person. The arrest of a person already on bail amounts to overreach of the State. Illegal detention cannot be allowed even for a minute,” the Bench had said during the hearing.

Directions issued by the Court: The Court then issued the following directions:

1. The Officer-in-Charge of the Kokrajhar Holding Centre shall immediately release Hasinur from detention;
2. The Superintendent of Police (Border), Goalpara is directed to ensure compliance with the Court’s order;
3. In the event the State believes there is compelling reason to detain him, it may move for recall of the bail order or file an appropriate application under law;
4. The case is listed for June 20, 2025, for the State to report compliance with the release directions.

The Court’s order emphatically stated that even a minute of unlawful detention was impermissible, and rebuked the failure of the relevant department to provide timely instructions to the FT counsel.

Background: Bail, compliance, and sudden pickup

Hachinur had been declared a foreigner by an FT order prior to 2021. He was released on conditional bail on June 7, 2021, by a division bench of the Gauhati High Court, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s directions in Suo Moto WP(C) No. 1/2020 concerning COVID-related decongestion of detention centres. The release order, like others under the COVID regime, required weekly reporting to the local police station.

Between 2021 and 2025, Hachinur had consistently complied with this requirement. In the weeks leading up to his detention, his attendance at Goalpara Police Station was recorded on May 5, May 12, and May 19, 2025, as per an attendance sheet signed by police officers, annexed to the writ petition as Annexure 4.

Yet, on May 25, 2025, he was picked up from his residence by Border Police personnel. He was first taken to the Goalpara Police Reserve, then reportedly shifted to Matia Transit Camp, and ultimately lodged in the Kokrajhar Holding Centre — his location remaining unknown to his family until it was disclosed in court on June 6.

June 6, 2025: Habeas petition admitted; deportation stayed

On June 6, the High Court heard the matter for the first time. At that stage, the State and FT counsel failed to disclose any valid reason for the detention, but confirmed that Hachinur was being held at Kokrajhar Holding Centre, not Matia. On that basis, the Court:

• Issued notice on the writ petition;
• Directed that no deportation shall be carried out without the Court’s permission;
• Permitted two family members to visit the detainee in custody;
• Ordered that the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Border), Kamrup Metro, be informed, and that the detention centre receive the order for implementation.

This interim order gave the family its first opportunity to confirm that Hachinur was alive and accessible — reportedly following nearly two weeks of silence from authorities and a refusal by local police to accept an FIR.

(Details of June 6 hearing may be read here.)

June 11, 2025: Court flags potential illegality of detention

At the next hearing, on June 11, Advocate A.R. Sikdar, for the petitioner, submitted that he had met with Hachinur at the holding centre and reiterated that the detainee was bail-compliant. He sought restoration of liberty in light of the fact that the Foreigners Tribunal opinion against him was under challenge in WP(C) 2546/2020, and there was no revocation of bail nor any fresh order warranting arrest.

The FT counsel requested time, indicating that instructions would be received soon. However, the Court made it clear that the matter could not be indefinitely delayed, and stated:

“If he was complying with his bail conditions, detention may be illegal.”

Accordingly, the Court:

• Ordered that Annexure 4 (police attendance sheet) be verified by the Officer-in-Charge, Goalpara PS;
• Directed petitioner’s counsel to send a soft copy of the petition and annexure to the FT counsel;
• Instructed that the FT counsel email the documents to the Goalpara SP (Border) and the OC of Goalpara PS for verification;
• Fixed the next hearing for June 16, while maintaining the earlier direction against deportation.

Detailed report may be read here.

Significance: A judicial stand against state overreach in citizenship matters

The order in Mozida Begum v. Union of India is a resounding judicial affirmation of constitutional due process in a context where dozens of similarly placed individuals — Bengali-speaking Muslims previously released on COVID bail — have allegedly been picked up without warrant, notice, or legal recourse.

It demonstrates that:

• Bail is not symbolic: Once granted, it protects liberty unless formally revoked.
• Arrest without legal authority is unconstitutional, even for those declared “foreigners.”
• Pending writ petitions against FT declarations must be respected, especially where the State has not succeeded in upholding those opinions.
• And that access to police records (like attendance sheets) and visitation rights matter deeply in reasserting legal agency.

The Gauhati High Court’s refusal to adjourn, even briefly, and its framing of the arrest as “overreach” sets a vital precedent for similar cases emerging across Assam.

Related:

Gauhati HC questions legal basis of re-detention of bail-compliant detainee, orders verification of police attendance record

Seeking sanctuary, facing scrutiny: Why India must revisit its approach to the displaced

Gauhati HC: Union government admits Samsul Ali was handed over to BSF, Court grants family visitation rights if not yet deported

Holding centres, missing memos, and silent transfers: Gauhati HC hears 5 petitions filed by families of Bengali-speaking Muslim detainees in Assam

India: A deep dive into the legal obligations before “deportation”

CJP submits supplementary memo to NHRC with survivor and family testimonies on Assam’s expulsions of Bengali-speaking Muslims

The post “Illegal detention cannot be allowed even for a minute”: Gauhati HC orders release of Goalpara man picked up despite complying with bail conditions appeared first on SabrangIndia.

However, an examination of the Court’s free speech jurisprudence in recent months reveals a disquieting pattern of contradiction and inconsistency. Alongside landmark judgments that have robustly defended expressive freedoms, there has emerged a parallel and conflicting stream of pronouncements, delivered through interim orders and expansive bail conditions. These orders have imposed sweeping prior restraints on speech, frequently without substantive reasoning and based on subjective assessments of morality or public sentiment. This trend represents a significant deviation from the Court’s larger constitutional role. It departs from established doctrines that demand a high threshold for restricting speech and, in doing so, fosters a climate of legal uncertainty. This analysis contends that this jurisprudential dissonance not only undermines the predictability of law but also creates a tangible “chilling effect” on public discourse, thereby weakening the very democratic fabric the Court is duty-bound to protect.

The doctrinal anchor: Article 19(1)(a) and the high bar for restriction

The Supreme Court’s traditional role as a bulwark for free expression is rooted in a series of foundational precedents. In Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950), the Court established that the freedom of speech lies at the core of all democratic organizations. It held that any restriction must be evaluated from the perspective of its directness and proximity to the specified grounds in Article 19(2), such as public order or the security of the State. This principle evolved over decades, culminating in the landmark verdict in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015).

In Shreya Singhal, the Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, for being unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.[1] Crucially, it fortified the “incitement” standard, clarifying that speech can only be restricted when it rises to the level of “incitement to an offence.” This test requires a clear nexus between the expression and the likelihood of imminent lawless action. Mere advocacy, discussion, or even offensive and unpopular speech is constitutionally protected.[2] This judgment, along with the effective suspension of the colonial-era sedition law (Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code) in May 2022 due to its rampant misuse, represents the doctrinal high-water mark of free speech protection in India. Whether the Court should have suspended the provision or not, in the context of the discourse around judicial activism and overreach is a different debate.

These rulings firmly embody the Court’s constitutional role: to set clear, objective, and high standards for any State action that seeks to curtail expression. It is against this established doctrinal backdrop that the recent developments must be assessed.

The changing trajectory: Judicial paternalism and unreasoned restraints

The recent cases of Ranveer Allahabadia and Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad serve as stark illustrations of a judicial approach that appears untethered from the principles laid down in Shreya Singhal.

In the matter involving podcaster Ranveer Allahabadia, the Court was approached for the consolidation of multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) filed against him for allegedly obscene content in an online show. While granting interim protection from arrest, the bench imposed a blanket, unreasoned gag order, prohibiting him from airing any shows on any platform. This order was a classic act of prior restraint, imposed without any adjudicatory finding that the content was, in fact, legally obscene. The Court’s oral remarks, condemning the language as “dirty” and “perverted” suggested a departure from objective legal analysis towards a subjective, moralistic critique. While this sweeping ban was later modified, it was conditioned on an undertaking that future content would “maintain the desired standards of decency and morality so that viewers of any age group can watch.” Such a condition is inherently vague and places the judiciary in the role of a super-censor, dictating amorphous “societal norms” for creative expression. This judicial paternalism (as Anmol Jain mentions it) stands in direct conflict with the principle that the Court’s role is to be a legal arbiter, not a moral guardian. Furthermore, the bench’s stated inclination to expand the scope of this proceeding to devise regulatory measures for online content signals a potential overstepping of the judicial function into the legislative domain.

Even more troubling is the case of Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, who faced multiple FIRs, including for sedition, over a Facebook post commenting on India’s recent military operation—Operation Sindhoor. The Supreme Court, while granting interim bail, imposed an exceptionally broad gag order, restraining him from expressing any opinion on the underlying conflict. It also directed the confiscation of his passport. Critically, the Court refrained from undertaking a prima facie analysis of whether the speech in question met the stringent incitement-to-violence threshold. It delegated the task of interpreting the “complexity of the phraseology” to a Special Investigation Team (SIT) of police officers. For this very broad set of restrictions to have been put, one would expect a deep reasoning as to why a person’s free speech is being restricted on this level for a simple Facebook post that has not incited any violence anywhere. However, the Court finds a way to not meet this reasonable expectation by giving a 2-page order. Not even a prima facie mentioning of the remarks or saying how they engaged with them is done by the Court. While it is a simple interim bail order, the restrictions placed on the petitioner warrant the reasoning, something that would not have been expected of the Court if not for the restrictions.

This raises a pertinent question. Does the Supreme Court not have the responsibility to be well reasoned it its order, especially in an order that curtails the freedom of speech of a person? In a democracy like India, the Court does have such responsibility.

These cases demonstrate a worrying departure from constitutional first principles. They prioritize executive concerns over individual liberty, impose prior restraints without robust reasoning, and apply vague, subjective standards of decency or propriety that are alien to the rigorous tests established in prior judgments.

The counter-Narrative: enduring fidelity to constitutional principles

The restrictive turn is, however, not a complete narrative. The Supreme Court has also delivered powerful judgments that reaffirm its commitment to free expression, creating a landscape of profound jurisprudential dissonance.

In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi (2022), the Court was faced with a similar situation of multiple FIRs filed against a journalist for his tweets. The State explicitly requested a bail condition barring him from tweeting. The bench, which notably included one of the same justices as in the Allahabadia case, unequivocally rejected this plea. It reasoned that such a gag order would be a “disproportionate.” The Court declared that a blanket ban on expression could not be imposed as a condition of liberty.

Similarly, in Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat (2025), the Court quashed an FIR against a Member of Parliament over a poem alleged to have promoted disharmony. Justice Abhay S. Oka, writing for the bench, asserted that speech must be judged by the standards of a “strong-minded, firm and courageous” individual, not those of a “weak and oscillating” mind prone to taking offense.

These judgments stand as a testament to the enduring strength of the constitutional framework. They apply the high-threshold tests for restricting speech, reject the notion of pre-emptive gags as a routine measure, and refuse to entertain the “heckler’s veto” by protecting speech from the easily offended. Yet, their co-existence with the orders in Allahabadia and Mahmudabad creates an environment of acute legal uncertainty.

The chilling cascade: consequences of jurisprudential inconsistency

The primary casualty of this judicial inconsistency is the rule of law itself. When the country’s apex court applies contradictory principles to similar fact patterns, it becomes impossible for citizens, journalists, artists, and academics to predict the legal boundaries of permissible speech. This unpredictability is the very engine of the “chilling effect.” Expression is not only chilled by direct censorship but also by the fear that a legitimate, constitutionally protected opinion could be ensnared in a web of litigation, culminating in a restrictive gag order issued at the interim stage by the highest court itself.

This phenomenon has a cascading impact. When the Supreme Court imposes gag orders as bail conditions, it normalises such practices, signalling to lower courts and law enforcement agencies that these are acceptable tools for managing speech-related offenses. The result is a systemic shift where bail, a mechanism intended to secure liberty, is weaponised to curtail it. The core constitutional role of the Supreme Court is not merely to adjudicate disputes but to provide clear, consistent, and principled legal guidance for the entire nation by functioning as the supreme interpreter of the Constitution. By issuing contradictory pronouncements, the Court detours from this vital function, leaving a vacuum filled by uncertainty and fear. This leads to a public sphere characterized by self-censorship, where critical inquiry and challenging discourse are stifled, not by authoritarian laws, but by an unpredictable judiciary.

Conclusion: A call for constitutional reaffirmation

The Supreme Court of India stands at a critical juncture. The recent inconsistent rulings on free speech threatens to erode its legacy as the unwavering protector of fundamental rights. While landmark decisions continue to uphold the sanctity of Article 19(1)(a), the parallel trend of imposing ad-hoc, unreasoned, and paternalistic restrictions represents a significant deviation from its constitutional charter. This inconsistency is more than a mere academic curiosity; it has profound real-world consequences for the health of India’s democracy.

To restore constitutional equilibrium, the Court must return to a position of principled consistency. This requires a steadfast refusal to impose prior restraints without satisfying the highest standards of justification. It demands that all restrictions on speech be grounded in clear, reasoned orders that adhere to the established tests of necessity and proportionality. The judiciary must consciously resist the temptation to act as a moral arbiter, grounding its decisions in objective legal standards, not subjective notions of public taste.

The freedom of speech is too vital to be left to the vagaries of shifting judicial moods. The responsibility rests squarely with the Supreme Court to reaffirm its constitutional role, ensuring that the marketplace of ideas remains open and that its gavel serves to protect, not inadvertently gag, the diverse voices that animate the world’s largest democracy.

(The author is part of the legal research team of the organisation)

[1] Para 98, (2013) 12 S.C.C. 73

[2] Ibid, Para 44

Related:

Free Speech Upheld: Bombay HC strikes down IT (Amendment) Rules, 2023 as unconstitutional

Judges differ on challenge against IT amendments of 2023, right to freedom of speech & expression hangs in balance

2023 Amendment to Broadcasting Rules are clear case of censorship nothing less: Justice GS Patel, Bombay HC

IT Rules 2023: Union Government can now flag content relating to any of its “businesses” as “misleading”

The post Mixed Messaging: Free speech jurisprudence from the Supreme Court appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Gauhati High Court on June 11 raised serious concerns over the continued detention of Hachinur @ Hasinur, a resident of Milan Nagar in Goalpara, who had been picked up by the Border Police on May 25, 2025 despite being released on bail in 2021 and allegedly complying with all bail conditions, including weekly attendance at the local police station. The Court observed that if the detenu had been appearing regularly as required, his custody may amount to illegal detention.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by Mozida Begum, mother of Hachinur, who approached the Court after her son disappeared from public view following his detention. Her petition included Annexure-4, a police-station-attested attendance sheet showing that her son had signed in at Goalpara Police Station on May 5, May 12, and May 19 — just days before he was picked up.

“If he was complying with bail, detention may be illegal”: High Court

During the hearing, Advocate A.R. Sikdar, representing the petitioner, informed the Court that he had been able to meet Hachinur in the Kokrajhar Holding Centre, where he is currently lodged. He urged the Court to consider granting bail on the ground that Hachinur had been fully complying with the conditions laid down when he was released on bail by the High Court in 2021.

The bench, comprising Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Malasri Nandi, took note of the submissions and orally observed that if the detenu had in fact been reporting to the police every week as required, then his re-detention may lack legal basis.

“But if he was not violating his bail conditions, detention may be illegal,” the bench remarked. It further directed that Annexure-4 — the attendance sheet signed by police officers — be sent to the Officer-in-Charge of Goalpara Police Station for immediate verification.

State counsel seeks time; court issues notice, demands verification

The Standing Counsel for the Foreigners Tribunal, appearing for the State, submitted that notice may be issued, and indicated that an affidavit could be filed after the facts were verified. The bench agreed to proceed formally, but underscored that the matter could not be allowed to drift, especially in light of what appeared to be documented compliance by the detainee.

Accordingly, the Court ordered the issuance of notice to the respondents, observing that notice had already been issued on June 6, but reiterating that the matter required active steps. (details of June 6 hearing may be read here.)

The Court further directed that:

• The Officer-in-Charge of Goalpara Police Station is to verify the authenticity of Annexure 4 — the attendance sheet annexed with the petition;
• A soft copy of the entire petition and Annexure 4 is to be shared by the petitioner’s counsel with the FT standing counsel, who shall forward it via email to the SP (Border), Goalpara and the Officer-in-Charge, Goalpara PS;
• The State is to file an affidavit confirming or contesting the contents of the attendance sheet by Monday (June 16);

The case is listed for next hearing on June 16, allowing the Court to hear the matter in light of the verification.

Family granted visitation rights to Kokrajhar Holding Centre

As an additional relief, the Court granted liberty to two family members to visit Hachinur at the Kokrajhar Holding Centre, ensuring that the family can maintain contact and facilitate his legal representation. This order builds on the interim protection granted on June 6, in which the Court had also directed that no deportation of the detainee be carried out without its express permission.

Background and legal framework

Hachinur was declared a foreigner by a Foreigners Tribunal prior to 2021. However, he was granted bail by the Gauhati High Court, and released on conditions set out in the Supreme Court directions concerning long-term detainees during the COVID-19 pandemic. One key condition was that he appear at the local police station weekly. The family maintains he had never missed a date, and that this was confirmed through police-signed attendance records.

Despite this, on May 25, 2025, he was taken into custody by Border Police, initially moved to the Goalpara Police Reserve, and then shifted to the Matia Transit Camp, where officials allegedly told his family he was no longer present. His location was only confirmed during the June 6 hearing, when the FT counsel revealed he was at Kokrajhar Holding Centre.

The current proceedings question whether such a re-arrest — absent any breach of bail or new judicial direction — can be sustained under law, and whether it violates Articles 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and 22 (protection against arbitrary detention) of the Constitution.

The order may be read below.

Related:

Seeking sanctuary, facing scrutiny: Why India must revisit its approach to the displaced

Gauhati HC: Union government admits Samsul Ali was handed over to BSF, Court grants family visitation rights if not yet deported

Holding centres, missing memos, and silent transfers: Gauhati HC hears 5 petitions filed by families of Bengali-speaking Muslim detainees in Assam

India: A deep dive into the legal obligations before “deportation”

CJP submits supplementary memo to NHRC with survivor and family testimonies on Assam’s expulsions of Bengali-speaking Muslims

The post Gauhati High Court flags potential illegality in detention of man complying with bail; police directed to verify weekly reporting appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On May 19, a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma passed the order even as it allowed an appeal filed by a man, who was denied bail by the Uttarakhand High Court in February 2025. The petitioner was arrested under provisions of the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, for allegedly concealing his religious identity and fraudulently marrying the woman under Hindu rites.

In the order, the Supreme Court said: “The respondent-state cannot have any objection to the appellant and his wife residing together inasmuch as they have been married as per the wishes of their respective parents and families.” The bench further clarified that the ongoing criminal proceedings would not come in the way of the couple living together by choice.

The court further directed the petitioner’s release on bail, noting that he had been incarcerated for nearly six months and that a charge sheet had already been filed. “Considering the facts on record, in our view, the case for bail is made out,” said the bench.  The SC also took note of the argument made by the senior counsel for the petitioner, who contended that the FIR was lodged only after certain individuals and organisations objected to the interfaith marriage. It was pointed out that the wedding took place with the full knowledge and presence of both families, and that Siddiqui provided an affidavit the day after the marriage affirming he would not force his wife to convert and that she would be free to follow her faith.

The Supreme Court also made it clear in their order that during “the pendency of the criminal proceeding against the man,” he and his wife would be free to reside together if they did so “on their own volition.”

This incident is the latest in a long line of incidents where personal relationships have been politicised by the far right, with Uttarakhand being among the most regressive states on this issue.

The FIR in this case was lodged on December 12, 2024, at Rudrapur Police Station in Uttarakhand’s Udham Singh Nagar district, just two days after the couple’s wedding on December 10. The Uttarakhand High Court, had, in February this year, declined to grant Siddiqui bail, holding that facts relating to his religion had allegedly not been disclosed to the woman and her family before the marriage. In its February 28 order rejecting bail, the High Court accepted the prosecution’s argument that the man’s religious identity was deliberately concealed. The High Court observed that while the wedding was solemnised under Hindu customs, and the applicant and his family failed to reveal their Muslim identity until after the marriage.

The complaint was reportedly lodged by a cousin of the woman, alleging that the family discovered the groom’s religious background only upon visiting his residence in Delhi, where they noticed that “most of the people belonged to a different community.” The FIR was filed the very next day, despite an affidavit submitted by Siddiqui on December 11 assuring that he would not pressure his wife into converting and would respect her religious autonomy.

While Siddiqui’s counsel highlighted that his own mother is a practising Hindu and that he grew up in a Hindu environment, the Uttarakhand High Court remained unconvinced. It noted that the couple did not marry under the Special Marriage Act, which governs interfaith unions in India, and that key facts were allegedly kept from the woman’s family, pointing to the affidavit as evidence that “correct facts had not been disclosed.” Rejecting the defence that the information was known to both sides, the High Court concluded, “The applicant does not deserve bail.” This order by a constitutional court raises questions on the issue of constitutional rights and liberty.

In contrast, the Supreme Court viewed the matter through the lens of personal liberty and marital autonomy, reiterating that the right of adult individuals to live together cannot be curtailed by the state on the ground of religious difference. “This is an appropriate case where the relief of bail ought to be granted,” held the bench, noting the petitioner’s submissions that the couple may choose to live separately from their families and continue to live peacefully without any hindrance.

The Order of the Supreme Court may be read here.

Related:

Allahabad and Madhya Pradesh High Courts deliver two contradictory judgments on interfaith marriage without conversion under Special Marriage Act (SMA)

By quashing the FIR against an interfaith couple accused of “conversion”, the Allahabad High Court restores jurisprudence on a constitutional path, upholds freedom of choice

The post SC: Freedom for man in interfaith union: SC grants bail to Muslim partner appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In the hearings of the petition filed by Bakkar Ali regarding the recent allegedly secret detention of his father Samsul Ali, the counsel for Union of India today –June 10– told Gauhati High Court the father was formally handed over by Assam Police to the Border Security Force (BSF) Sector Headquarters at Panbari on May 26, 2025. The disclosure came nearly two weeks after Samsul Ali was allegedly picked up from his residence in Chirang district during a late-night operation on May 25, without any arrest memo, warrant, or court production — prompting his family to move the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The last hearing in the matter was yesterday, June 9, and a report on the last hearing may be read here.

In the most recent order passed today by the bench of Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and N. Unni Krishnan Nair, the Court directed that, if Samsul Ali has not yet been deported, the head of the BSF Sector Headquarters shall permit the petitioner and one family member to visit him, and facilitate the execution of a vakalatnama to allow continued legal representation. In the event that deportation has already taken place, the authorities have been instructed to disclose the exact location from which the deportation occurred.

The case — in which legal aid is being provided by Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) — is part of a growing number of petitions being filed in the Gauhati High Court, where families allege that Bengali-speaking Muslims previously released on bail after FT declarations are being secretly re-detained and, in some cases, deported without judicial oversight. These cases share a recurring pattern: midnight pickups, non-disclosure of custody, denial of access to legal remedies, and procedural opacity in handovers to BSF or other agencies.

Today’s order builds on yesterday’s hearing in the matter, which took place on June 9, in which the High Court had criticised the State’s failure to provide any documentation about the transfer to BSF. While it has declined, for now, to direct the Union of India to file a formal affidavit, the Court has kept the petition alive — leaving open the door for further relief if deportation is confirmed or if any adverse development occurs. The matter is next listed for June 20, 2025. (Details of the earlier proceeding may be read here.)

Meanwhile, through independent social media sources, CJP has found Samsul Ali in a distraught condition may be in No Man’s land between the two countries. See the memorandums submitted to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) on the question here and here.

From Secrecy to Disclosure: The three-stage legal timeline of the case

This case has seen incremental disclosures over successive hearings:

• May 25, 2025: Samsul Ali, a declared foreigner who had been released on conditional bail since 2020, was picked up from his residence in Goraimari No. 2, Chirang, around 11:30 PM, without a warrant, memo of arrest, or cancellation of bail.

• June 9, 2025: The State counsel submitted for the first time that Samsul Ali had been “handed over to the BSF,” but failed to provide any documentation, location, or handover memorandum. The Court criticised this procedural opacity and ordered the SP (Border), Chirang to cooperate with the FT counsel and supply all relevant information via WhatsApp. (Details of the said proceeding may be read here.)

• June 10, 2025: The State confirmed in court that Samsul Ali was handed over to the BSF Sector HQ at Panbari on May 26. On this basis, the Court passed a direction that, if Samsul Ali has not yet been deported, the head of the Sector Headquarters shall permit the petitioner and one family member to visit him and obtain his signature on a vakalatnama. If he has been deported, the authorities must inform the petitioner of the exact location from which the deportation took place.

Petition remains pending, keeps door open for further relief

During today’s hearing, Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta, appearing for the petitioner, requested that the Union of India be directed to file an affidavit detailing whether Samsul Ali has been deported and, if so, on what legal and factual basis. The Court, however, declined to issue such a direction at this stage, noting that a large number of similar cases are now being filed, and that such a step would not be feasible in every matter.

That said, the petition has not been dismissed. The Court clarified that if the petitioner faces any adverse consequence — such as confirmed deportation — the said may be informed to the Court immediately. It also indicated that a report would be called for if deportation has indeed taken place, keeping the petition procedurally alive and legally relevant.

The matter is now listed for further hearing on June 20, 2025.

Background: Bail compliance, FT order, and the alleged procedural bypass

Samsul Ali was declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal, Chirang in 2016. He spent more than three years in detention before being released in February 2020 under the bail regime outlined by the Supreme Court in SCLSC v. Union of India (2019). Since his release, he had been reporting weekly to the Police Station, with his last appearance logged on May 21, 2025 — just four days before his pickup.

His family maintains that he was detained without documentation, never produced before a magistrate, and that police allegedly refused to accept an FIR, forcing them to send complaints by registered post. When no official information was forthcoming, the family had filed the said habeas corpus petition — which has since led to successive disclosures culminating in today’s order.

The FT order under which he was declared a foreigner is not based on any proof of border crossing or foreign documentation, and does not establish nationality in any other country. The family alleges that Samsul Ali has been rendered stateless, and that deportation without formal diplomatic clearance and nationality verification would be illegal.

Visitation to BSF: A notable legal step

While courts have regularly granted visitation rights to families of detainees held in civil detention centres, today’s order granting visitation rights to a person in BSF custody at a Sector Headquarters is notable. It affirms that even in border security operations, access to family and legal counsel cannot be arbitrarily denied, especially when the legal status of the person’s custody or deportation is under judicial review.

It also sets a precedent for ensuring access and due process even in cases where the handover to BSF is claimed, but documentation is missing or incomplete — a frequent concern raised in recent petitions alleging pushbacks across the Indo-Bangladesh border.

The petition will be taken up again on June 20, by which time it may become clear whether:

• Samsul Ali remains within the jurisdiction of Indian authorities;
• He has been deported, and if so, under what procedures;
• His family has been permitted to meet him and secure his legal signature.

The case remains a significant test of procedural safeguards, executive accountability, and the right to challenge arbitrary detention and removal, particularly in Assam’s fraught citizenship regime.

The order may be read below.

Related:

Gauhati High Court directs Assam Government to disclose whereabouts of two men secretly detained by the police in May

CJP Exclusive from Assam: Six Indian women, six torturous nights, and the ordeal of being dubbed “Bangladeshi” by the State

“Disappeared in the night”: CJP’s memorandum to NHRC on Assam’s secretive detentions and illegal pushbacks

CJP Exclusive: Homeland to No Man’s Land! Assam police’s unlawful crackdown on residents still battling for restoration of citizenship rights?

The post Union Govt admits handover of Samsul Ali to BSF, Gauhati High Court grants family visitation rights if not yet deported appeared first on SabrangIndia.

What We Know So Far: June 9, 2025

The Gauhati High Court on Monday, June 9, heard four separate writ petitions invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, each seeking urgent relief and accountability in the cases of individuals who were allegedly picked up by Assam Police from their homes in Chirang and Dhubri districts between May 24–25, 2025, without any arrest memo, warrant, or formal production before a magistrate.

All four individuals — Doyjan Bibi, Samsul Ali, Majibur Rehman, and Abdul Sheikh — had previously been declared foreigners by Foreigners Tribunals (FTs), and were later released from detention under bail regimes notified by the State in accordance with Supreme Court directions during the COVID-19 period. All of these individuals are being provided legal aid by Citizens for Justice and Peace. They had all been regularly reporting to police as part of their bail conditions until the date of their sudden and unexplained apprehension. Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta appeared in these matters.

Every week, CJP’s dedicated team in Assam, comprising community volunteers, district volunteer motivators, and lawyers, provides vital paralegal support, counseling, and legal aid to many affected by the citizenship crisis in over 24 districts in Assam.  Through our hands-on approach, 12,00,000 people successfully submitted completed NRC forms (2017-2019). We fight Foreigner Tribunal cases monthly at the district level.  Through these concerted efforts, we have achieved an impressive success rate of 20 cases annually, with individuals successfully obtaining their Indian citizenship. This ground level data ensures informed interventions by CJP in our Constitutional Courts. Your support fuels this crucial work. Stand with us for Equal Rights for All #HelpCJPHelpAssam. Donate NOW!

In the hearings, the High Court addressed key factual developments in each case, including the revival of FT orders, lack of procedural documentation in alleged deportation, and confirmation of detainees’ custody in holding centres. While the Court granted limited relief — such as visitation rights and directions to trace detainees — the legality of the State’s actions and procedural safeguards during or prior to deportation remain under ongoing judicial scrutiny. The matters are being heard since Friday, June 6, 2025.

Meanwhile, through independent social media sources, CJP has found that Doyjan Bibi, a woman from India may be currently lodged in a jail in Bangladesh and Samsul Ali in a similarly distraught condition in No Man’s land between the two countries. See the memorandums submitted to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) here and here.

The matters are next listed between June 10 and June 20, 2025.

Case 1: Abdul Rejjak v. Union of India (Re: Doyjan Bibi)

Bench: Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and N. Unni Krishnan Nair

Status: Revival of FT Order due to non-compliance

Next hearing: June 16

The first case involved the petition filed by Abdul Rejjak, husband of Doyjan Bibi, who was picked up from her residence in Gauripur, Dhubri district on the night of May 24, 2025. She had previously been declared a foreigner by FT No. 4, Dhubri in 2017, and was detained for over two years before being released in 2021.

Notably, in 2021, a coordinate bench of the Gauhati High Court had set aside the ex parte FT opinion that declared her a foreigner — subject to the condition that she reappear before the Tribunal to file her written statement and participate in fresh proceedings. According to the State’s submissions, Doyjan Bibi failed to appear before the FT on the reappointed date, leading to the revival of the original FT declaration and cancellation of bail.

The petitioner has argued that the non-appearance was due to a delay in receiving the court’s 2021 order and not due to wilful default. The Court took note of these circumstances and listed the matter for continued hearing on June 16, where it may further assess the legal consequences of non-compliance and whether any further relief is appropriate in light of the revived foreigner opinion.

The order may be viewed below:

Case 2: Bakkar Ali v. Union of India (Re: Samsul Ali)

Bench: Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and N. Unni Krishnan Nair

Status: BSF handover admitted; procedural details missing

Next hearing: June 10

In this petition, Bakkar Ali, a resident of Goraimari No. 2, sought a writ of habeas corpus for his father, Samsul Ali, who had been declared a foreigner in 2016 (FT Case No. BNGN/FT(CHR)2039/08), detained for over three years, and released in February 2020 in accordance with Supreme Court-mandated bail conditions. Since then, he had faithfully reported weekly to Panbari Police Station, with his last appearance recorded on May 21, 2025.

According to the petition, Samsul Ali was picked up by police around 11:30 PM on May 25 without any arrest memo, warrant, or judicial order. Despite efforts by the family to trace his whereabouts, the authorities refused to accept an FIR and provided no information.

During the hearing, the State admitted that Samsul Ali was handed over to the BSF, reportedly pursuant to a Government of India notification. However, no documentation or particulars of the handover — such as the BSF post, time, or any memorandum — were provided.

The Court expressed serious displeasure with the lack of procedural information and stated that the incomplete information was not at all appreciated. In the order, the bench noted that “The Superintendent of Police (Border), Chirang should have provided appropriate particulars.”

The Court directed that the SP (Border) Chirang must communicate with the FT counsel and transmit all relevant details via WhatsApp, including any official memorandum of handover. The matter has been listed for immediate hearing on June 10, with the Court expected to examine whether the deportation complied with legal procedures, including those outlined in the State’s own affidavit before the Supreme Court in Rajubala Das v. Union of India.

The order may be viewed below:

Case 3: Rejiya Khatun v. Union of India (Re: Majibur Rehman)

Bench: Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and N. Unni Krishnan Nair

Status: Detention in Holding Centre confirmed; visitation rights granted

Next hearing: June 20

In the third case, the Court heard a habeas corpus petition filed by Rejiya Khatun, wife of Majibur Rehman (also known as Majibur Sheikh), who had been declared a foreigner by FT Chirang in 2019. After completing two years in detention, he was released on November 15, 2021, under COVID-19 bail guidelines, and had been consistently reporting to Kajolgaon Police Station every week — his last recorded visit being May 21, 2025.

The petition alleged that he was picked up from his home in Salijhora at night on May 25, without any documentation or court order. For over two weeks, no information about his custody was shared with the family. Attempts to file an FIR were refused, and a complaint had to be sent by post.

In Court, the counsel for FT matters confirmed that Majibur Rehman is currently being held at the Kokrajhar Holding Centre. In response, the Court granted visitation rights to the petitioner and a maximum of two others and directed that his signature be obtained on the vakalatnama authorising legal representation. The petitioner’s counsel is to update the Court on the outcome of the visit. The case is listed for further hearing on June 20.

Details of the previous hearing may be read here.

The order may be viewed below:

Case 4: Sanidul Sheikh v. Union of India (Re: Abdul Sheikh)

Bench: Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and N. Unni Krishnan Nair

Status: Detention in Holding Centre confirmed; visitation rights granted

Next hearing: June 20

Similar in fact and structure to the previous matter, this petition was filed by Sanidul Sheikh, son of Abdul Sheikh, who was declared a foreigner ex parte in 2018 (FT Case No. BNGN/FT/CHR/220/07), detained for two years, and released in April 2021 under Supreme Court guidelines.

He had been reporting weekly to Kajolgaon Police Station, and was last seen signing the register on May 21, 2025. The family claims he was picked up by police from their residence in Chatibargaon at 11:30 PM on May 25 without any documentation, and subsequently disappeared. As in other cases, the family’s attempts to file an FIR were rebuffed.

During the hearing, the State submitted that Abdul Sheikh is detained at the Kokrajhar Holding Centre. The Court granted visitation rights, allowed up to two family members to accompany the petitioner, and instructed that his signature on a vakalatnama be collected. The matter is also listed for June 20, alongside the Majibur Rehman matter.

Details of the previous hearing may be read here.

The order may be viewed below:

Other such similar cases

While four of the habeas corpus petitions currently before the Gauhati High Court are being pursued with legal aid support from Citizens for Justice and Peace, they are by no means the only such instances. The case of Mozida Begum, who approached the Court independently regarding the sudden detention of her son Hachinur @ Hasinur, reflects that similar patterns of late-night police pick-ups, denial of access to legal process, and prolonged non-disclosure of whereabouts are affecting others beyond the immediate CJP-supported cases. Her case — involving a person released on bail and complying with reporting obligations — reinforces that these are not isolated incidents, but rather part of a larger trend impacting multiple families across Assam, raising shared concerns about procedural fairness, transparency, and the potential misuse of FT declarations to bypass due process protections.

Case: Mozida Begum v. Union of India (Re: Hachinur @ Hasinur)

Bench: Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Malasri Nandi

Status: Court issues interim stay on deportation of detainee; confirms he is held at Kokrajhar Holding Centre

Next hearing: June 11

On June 6, 2025, the Gauhati High Court heard the petition filed by Mozida Begum, mother of Hachinur @ Hasinur, a resident of Milan Nagar, Baladmari, Goalpara district. The petitioner moved the High Court after her son — a declared “foreigner” previously released on conditional bail — was suddenly picked up by the Border Police of Goalpara on May 25, 2025, despite regular compliance with bail conditions, including weekly reporting to the local police station.

The petitioner, represented by Advocate A.R. Sikdar, submitted that her son had been faithfully reporting to Goalpara Police Station, with his last three appearances logged on May 5, May 12, and May 19, 2025. These were duly acknowledged by the Officer-in-Charge, and an extract of the attendance register was annexed to the writ petition.

According to the petition, Hachinur was taken into custody on May 25 by personnel from the Border Police wing of Goalpara without prior notice, arrest memo, warrant, or any cancellation of his bail order. He was initially taken to the Goalpara Police Reserve, then transferred to the Transit Camp in Matia, where family members were told he was no longer in custody. Multiple inquiries by the family failed to elicit any information about his present location.

During the hearing on June 6, the counsel for the Foreigners Tribunal submitted that Hachinur is currently lodged at the Kokrajhar Holding Centre, located at the 7th Assam Police Battalion complex in Charaikhola. This was the first official confirmation of his whereabouts, nearly two weeks after he had been picked up.

Given the serious apprehensions of unlawful deportation expressed in the petition — especially in light of recent alleged “pushback” cases across the Indo-Bangladesh border — the Court issued the following interim directions:

No deportation of Hachinur shall be carried out without express orders of the Court;

The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Border), Kamrup (Metro) shall be informed of this order via email or WhatsApp by the FT standing counsel;

A copy of the order must also be forwarded to the Kokrajhar Holding Centre, and proof of such communication shall be placed before the Court on the next date;

The matter is next listed for June 11, 2025, when the State is expected to file its response, and the Court will consider further directions, including on the issue of bail.

The case has highlighted not only procedural irregularities in the manner of detention but also a lack of transparency in the custodial transfer of declared foreigners, even when they are under judicially approved bail protection.

The complete order may be read below.

Conclusion: A worrying pattern of secret detentions, procedural evasion, and statelessness risks in Assam

The five above-mentioned habeas corpus cases brought before the Gauhati High Court between June 4 and June 9, 2025, taken together, reveal more than isolated procedural lapses — they reflect a systemic pattern of disregard for constitutional safeguards, legal process, and transparency in Assam’s handling of individuals declared as “foreigners” under the Foreigners Act.

In each of these cases — whether it was Abdul Sheikh, Majibur Rehman, Doyjan Bibi, Samsul Ali, or Hachinur @ Hasinur — the individuals were:

Declared foreigners years ago by Foreigner Tribunals, often on ex parte or minimally reasoned orders;

Released from long-term detention under Supreme Court-mandated bail conditions during the COVID-19 period;

Complying regularly with all reporting obligations, including weekly appearances at police stations;

Then suddenly picked up between May 24–25, 2025, without arrest memos, warrants, or production before a magistrate;

With no information provided to families for days or weeks, forcing them to approach the High Court for basic disclosure;

And in at least one case (Samsul Ali), possibly deported without any official record of nationality verification or BSF handover protocol.

The Court, to its credit, has taken some necessary remedial steps: ordering disclosure of detainees’ locations, granting visitation rights, requiring vakalatnamas, staying deportation in one case, and demanding that missing procedural records (such as BSF handover documents) be produced. But the underlying pattern remains deeply concerning.

These are not instances of absconding or violation of bail — in fact, all five individuals were in regular contact with police authorities up to the week of their detention. Their sudden re-arrest — without formal notice, and in some cases without revocation of their bail — suggests a shadow system of policing that bypasses the courts, leaves families uninformed, and raises serious questions about executive overreach in matters of citizenship and detention.

What’s more, most of these Foreigners Tribunal opinions failed to establish even a prima facie case of alternative nationality. In several cases, the individuals were never shown to have crossed a border or held documents of any other country. Yet, the assumption of “foreignness” — once declared — now operates with a finality and force that can lead to detention, disappearance, and possible expulsion — even years later, and even after bail has been granted.

These cases expose a deeply troubling legal vacuum:

• The Foreigners Tribunals continue to deliver life-altering orders without establishing key facts — such as where the individual is allegedly from.
• Police and border authorities act without judicial oversight — detaining individuals with no fresh order, often in complete secrecy.
• Families are denied access, both physically and legally, until they invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court.
• And in the background looms the risk of statelessness — where a person is stripped of recognition in India, but not acknowledged as a citizen by any other country.

In a constitutional democracy, the deprivation of liberty must be backed by law, transparency, and due process. The five cases heard this week suggest those principles are being routinely bypassed in Assam’s implementation of the Foreigners Act.

As the matters come up again between June 10 and June 20, the Court has an opportunity not only to remedy individual violations, but to ask the larger question: Can a person be deprived of their freedom — and potentially their country — without judicial scrutiny, without nationality verification, and without a legal process the public can see and challenge?

So far, the answer has been far from clear.

Related:

Gauhati High Court directs Assam Government to disclose whereabouts of two men secretly detained by the police in May

CJP Exclusive from Assam: Six Indian women, six torturous nights, and the ordeal of being dubbed “Bangladeshi” by the State

“Disappeared in the night”: CJP’s memorandum to NHRC on Assam’s secretive detentions and illegal pushbacks

CJP Exclusive: Homeland to No Man’s Land! Assam police’s unlawful crackdown on residents still battling for restoration of citizenship rights?

The post Petitions multiply in Gauhati High Court as “Declared Foreigners” out on bail go missing; 4 out of 5 reported to be in holding centre, 1 “handed over” to BSF appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This action comes in the wake of two recent murders that sparked communal tensions in the coastal region. The externment measures are intended to restrict these individuals from entering designated areas for a specified period, thereby aiming to maintain public order and prevent further unrest.

The individuals in question are linked to multiple police station jurisdictions, including Bantwal, Vittal, Puttur Town and Rural, Kadaba, Sullia, Uppinangady, Punjalkatte, and Belthangady. The proceedings are being carried out under Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act, which empowers the police to initiate preventive action against those deemed a threat to public peace and safety.

In the wake of recent communal killings in Dakshina Kannada, the police have barred 36 individuals, who belong to both communities and have troubled pasts, from entering the district under Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act. This action is aimed at curbing unrest and… pic.twitter.com/Cxf7tKz2UU

— Ashish (@KP_Aashish) June 3, 2025

The list includes people from various parts of the district. They have been charged with assault, intimidation, extortion, and gang-related activities. The list comprises individuals aged between 22 and 54 from different parts of the district, all of whom have been booked for offences such as assault, intimidation, extortion, and involvement in gang-related activities.

Taking strict action to ensure peace in the region: Police

Arun K, Superintendent of Police, Dakshina Kannada, said, “We are taking strict action to ensure peace in the region. Externment is a preventive measure aimed at breaking the nexus of habitual offenders who pose a recurring threat to society” reported the Indian Express reported.

The police are in the process of serving notices, and hearings will be held in accordance with legal procedure before the orders are finalised, he said.

BJP Minister alleged Hindu leaders are being unfairly targeted under political pressure

Despite the list including individuals from both Hindu and Muslim communities, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has expressed concerns over what it alleges to be selective targeting. Union Minister of State for Labour and Employment, and Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises, Shobha Karandlaje, has written to the Chairman of the Police Complaints Authority, Justice N.K. Sudhindra Rao, claiming that Hindu leaders are being unfairly singled out under political pressure.

The minister its letter asserted that the action appears biased and urged the authority to review the externment proceedings to ensure they are free from political influence and carried out in a fair and transparent manner.

Shocking reports from Dakshina Kannada reveal targeted harassment of pro-Hindu citizens by police allegedly acting under political pressure from the Congress-led govt. Midnight raids, illegal surveillance & blatant abuse of power are being used as tools of political vendetta.… pic.twitter.com/eKJm3wk85V

— Shobha Karandlaje (@ShobhaBJP) June 3, 2025

She alleged that, “acting under political pressure from the Congress-led State Government, have been systematically targeting and harassing individuals associated with pro-Hindu organisations, social workers, traders, and even ordinary law-abiding civilians.”

Calling the situation “particularly alarming,” Karandlaje alleged that police officers have been visiting individuals’ homes late at night, photographing their residences, and recording GPS coordinates “without any legal warrants or just cause.”

She further added that these actions violate fundamental constitutional rights, including the right to privacy, the right to life under Article 21, and the right to equality under Article 14.

“This pattern of intimidation began shortly after the recent change in police leadership in Mangaluru,” she said, referencing the Karnataka government’s decision to transfer the Police Commissioner of Mangaluru city, along with the Superintendents of Police (SPs) of Dakshina Kannada and Udupi districts, in the wake of recent communal incidents.

Police initiated legal proceedings to extern BJP leader Arun Kumar Puthila

Additionally, in Dakshina Kannada district, police have initiated legal steps to extern BJP leader and Puthila Parivara head Arun Kumar Puthila, citing concerns about his impact on law and order in the region. Earlier, a formal notice had been served, requiring him to appear for a hearing on June 6. If he fails to do so, officials may proceed with an ex parte order, as per a report in the Hindustan Times.

The action is also being taken under Section 55 of the Karnataka Police Act. An official familiar with the matter said there are plans to relocate Puthila to the jurisdiction of Shahabad police station in Kalaburagi district. The notice, issued by the Puttur assistant commissioner, mentions that Puthila can be represented either in person or through a legal representative. The move reportedly stems from his past record of delivering inflammatory speeches, as reported

FIR registered against senior RSS leader Prabhakar Bhat for delivering provocative speech

As part of ongoing preventive measures, Dakshina Kannada police registered an FIR on June 2 against senior RSS leader Kalladka Prabhakar Bhat, accusing him of delivering a provocative speech during a condolence meeting held on May 12 for Suhas Shetty—a Hindutva activist and rowdy-sheeter who was recently killed on May 1 on a busy street in Mangaluru. Shetty was a prominent pro-right-wing youth leader associated with Bajrang Dal in Karnataka’s coastal belt.

According to The News Minute, the FIR details several of Prabhakar Bhat’s remarks. He reportedly said, “We don’t accept the killing of cows. So many of our youngsters have risen against that. They’re not rowdies; they’re patriots. They protect dharma (religion).”

The Hindu reports that the event took place at Madwa Palace Convention Hall in Kavalapadur village, under the jurisdiction of the Bantwal Rural Police Station. Authorities claim Bhat’s remarks were inflammatory and could spark communal unrest. The case has been filed under relevant section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Interim relief for RSS leader after Hate Speech FIR

Just hours after the FIR for alleged hate speech was registered, RSS leader Prabhakar Bhat approached the Karnataka High Court, seeking to quash the case and halt further proceedings. In response, Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar granted interim relief, directing the police not to take any coercive action against him. The court also instructed Bhat to cooperate with the investigation and required the police to obtain judicial permission before filing a chargesheet.

Siddaramaiah government is anti-Hindu: BJP State President

Karnataka BJP President B.Y. Vijayendra launched a sharp attack on the Congress-led state government, accusing it of misusing the police force to target Hindu leaders for political gain. He alleged the administration was appeasing the Muslim community for electoral benefits while ignoring “anti-social elements.”

“In the coastal region, Hindu leaders and BJP workers are being deliberately harassed to intimidate Hindu activists,” Vijayendra said, claiming the state was silencing pro-Hindu voices and shielding others. He also criticised the swift transfer of senior police officers in Mangaluru following the murder of a Muslim truck driver, calling it a politically driven move.

“There’s a clear conspiracy to slap false cases on Hindu leaders and put them behind bars,” he added, denouncing FIRs and externment orders as “shameful attempts to stifle free speech.” He demanded the immediate withdrawal of all charges. “The FIR against more than 15 leaders of Hindu organisations, including Kalladka Prabhakar Bhat, must be cancelled, and the deportation order revoked. If not, the government alone will be responsible for the consequences,” he warned.

Commenting on the murder of right-wing leader Suhas Shetty, Vijayendra reiterated his stance, calling the Congress government “anti-Hindu” and alleging repeated attacks on Hindu activists. He said BJP leaders had appealed to Governor Thaawar Chand Gehlot for a central probe, and the Ministry of Home Affairs had since handed the case to the National Investigation Agency (NIA).

“BJP workers met the Governor and we demanded an investigation by the NIA, which the state government did not accept, but the Centre fortunately agreed to…” he stated in a report in the ANI.

BJP warns of agitation over alleged ‘targeting Hindu leaders’ in Dakshina Kannada

The BJP has warned of a protest against the Congress-led Karnataka government, accusing it of targeting Hindu leaders in Dakshina Kannada. This comes after an FIR was filed against RSS leader Kalladka Prabhakar Bhat for alleged hate speech and an externment notice was issued to BJP leader Arun Kumar Puttila, as per the Hindu reports.

Dakshina Kannada MP Capt. Brijesh Chowta criticised the Siddaramaiah government for misusing state machinery to harass and divide Hindu voices, claiming it was a cover-up for its administrative failures. He said he had spoken to the state police chief and would meet top police officials in Mangaluru on Tuesday along with other party leaders.

Former Minister and Karkala MLA V. Sunil Kumar accused the government of trying to enforce a “police raj” in Dakshina Kannada and Udupi, as reported

However, on June 3, BJP Dakshina Kannada district president Satish Kumpala also accused the Congress-led Karnataka government of misusing the police force to “mentally harass and demoralise Sangh Parivar activists by filing baseless cases against them” as per the report in the Hindu.

Speaking to the media after meeting City Police Commissioner Sudheer Kumar Reddy and Dakshina Kannada SP K. Arun—along with BJP MLAs and party leaders—Kumpala said the delegation had conveyed its strong displeasure over what they described as the police treating individuals associated with Hindu organisations as criminals.

Whether Hindu or Muslim, action will be taken only if someone breaks the law: Karnataka Home Minister

Responding to allegations of selective action, Karnataka Home Minister G. Parameshwara stated, “Whether Hindu or Muslim, action will be taken only if someone breaks the law. No one will be spared if they do something wrong.”

In a post on X, Parameshwara emphasised the government’s commitment to restoring peace and social harmony in the state, particularly in light of recent communal disturbances in Dakshina Kannada, Udupi, Uttara Kannada, and Shivamogga districts.

“We had promised to make Karnataka a garden of peace, and the people placed their trust in us,” he wrote. “Now, more than ever, there is a need to foster an environment of peace and unity.”

ಕರ್ನಾಟಕವನ್ನು ಸರ್ವಜನಾಂಗದ ಶಾಂತಿಯ ತೋಟವಾಗಿಸುವ ವಾಗ್ದಾನವನ್ನು ನಾಡಿನ ಜನತೆಗೆ ನಾವು ಚುನಾವಣಾ ಪೂರ್ವದಲ್ಲೇ ನೀಡಿದ್ದೆವು, ಅದರಂತೆ ಜನತೆ ನಮ್ಮ ಮೇಲೆ ವಿಶ್ವಾಸವಿಟ್ಟು ಬಹುಮತದ ಸರ್ಕಾರ ರಚನೆಗೆ ಅವಕಾಶ ನೀಡಿದ್ದಾರೆ.

ರಾಜ್ಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಶಾಂತಿ, ಸೌಹಾರ್ದತೆ ಮತ್ತು‌ ಸಾಮರಸ್ಯದ ವಾತಾವರಣವನ್ನು ನಿರ್ಮಾಣ ಮಾಡುವ ಅಗತ್ಯ ಎಂದಿಗಿಂತಲೂ ಈಗ… pic.twitter.com/JYtHiSZr8F

— DIPR Karnataka (@KarnatakaVarthe) May 30, 2025

He added that the government has taken serious note of incidents involving communal miscreants and has formed a special task force to address them. The force—carved out of the existing Naxal Suppression Unit—includes 248 personnel, led by a DGP and supported by officers across various ranks.

“Strict action will be taken against anyone who incites communal hatred, regardless of their religion or affiliation. The law will take its course,” he said.

Related:

CJP files complaint with six news channels for spreading misinformation, making false terror links: Operation Sindoor

Rane in the Crosshairs: CJP demands authorities to Act now on BJP MLA’s alleged barrage of divisive rhetoric; three formal complaints lodged state-wide!

Waqf vs Holi Show: CJP asks Zee News to take down its divisive debate show over Waqf protest

The post Karnataka Police’s massive crackdown on habitual hate offenders in Dakshina Kannada region appeared first on SabrangIndia.