In a crucial development in the ongoing petition filed by Abdul Rejjak, the Gauhati High Court was informed for the first time in writing that the petitioner’s wife, Doyjan Bibi, had been handed over to the Border Security Force (BSF) on May 26, 2025, for deportation, contradicting the State’s prior submission that she was being held at the Kokrajhar Holding Centre.

This marks a serious departure from the State’s earlier stand. During the last hearing on June 16, the FT counsel, relying on telephonic instructions, had told the Court that Doyjan Bibi was located at the holding centre within the 7th Assam Police Battalion, Kokrajhar, and on that basis, the Court had granted visitation rights to the petitioner along with a family member to meet her and obtain her signature on a vakalatnama. CJP has been providing legal aid in the said case. (Details of the hearing may be read here.)

However, in the June 25 hearing, the FT counsel backtracked, admitting to the Court that he may have misinformed the bench. During the June 25 proceedings, the FT counsel acknowledged the earlier error, stating:

“I apologise, because in this I have probably been wrongly instructed… I got the telephonic instruction — not confirmed. But I was instructed that she was there in Kokrajhar. But later, in confirmed and written instruction received, it is said that she had been handed over to the BSF.”

He submitted that written confirmation had now been received from the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Dhubri, stating that on May 26, 2025, Doyjan Bibi had been handed over to the BSF Sector Headquarters, Panbari, with the intent of deporting her to Bangladesh.

The Bench, comprising Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and K. Sema, recorded this change in stand, noting that the earlier submission to the Court had been made on the basis of unverified telephonic instruction, and that the written communication now received from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Dhubri, indicated that Doyjan Bibi had in fact been handed over to the BSF on May 26, 2025.

The Court observed that the respondent had requested that information be obtained from the BSF Panbari regarding her whereabouts.

In its order, the Court noted that:

“Respondent submits that, although on the basis of telephonic instruction he had informed the Court on 16.06.2025 that the wife of the petitioner is being held in the holding centre in the 7th Assam Police Battalion, Kokrajhar, he has now received written instruction from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Dhubri, that on 26.05.2025, the wife of the petitioner was handed over to the BSF Sector Headquarters, Panbari, for deportation to Bangladesh.”

Accordingly, the Court directed the respondents to obtain information from the BSF Panbari regarding the present whereabouts of Doyjan Bibi, and observed that:

“In the event she has not been deported out of the country, obtain information as to the location where the petitioner’s wife is currently being held.”

The matter has been listed for further hearing on July 18, 2025.

Related:

Gauhati HC grants visitation rights after state confirms Doyjan Bibi is in Kokrajhar Holding Centre

Gauhati HC again grants visitation in Torap Ali petition challenging re-detention of uncle as affidavit opposing claims of regular police reporting is filed

Gauhati HC seeks verification of bail compliance in writ petition filed by Reijya Khatun for detained husband Majibur Rehman

“State says handed over to BSF, Found Unconscious in Bijni” Gauhati HC demands answers after Samsul Ali returns home unconscious

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

The post Doyjan Bibi not in Holding Centre, but handed to BSF: State tells Gauhati HC, taking departure from earlier stand appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In two closely linked petitions involving allegations of unlawful re-detention of individuals released under COVID-era bail guidelines, the Gauhati High Court this week recorded State admissions of full bail compliance, and directed the Government to file detailed objections by affidavit explaining how such persons can now be re-detained without first recalling standing judicial bail orders.

The petitions — Sanidul Sheikh v. Union of India, whose hearing took place on June 25, and Reijya Khatun v. Union of India, whose hearing was held on June 26, concern Abdul Sheikh and Majibur Rehman, respectively, both of whom were declared foreigners by Foreigners Tribunals (FTs), spent over two years in detention, and were released under High Court–monitored COVID bail orders pursuant to the Supreme Court’s 2020 directions in Suo Motu WP(C) No. 1/2020. Both had been reporting weekly to their local police stations for over two years, but were picked up again in May 2025, without notice or any recorded violation of bail conditions. CJP has been providing legal aid in both of these cases.

June 25: Sanidul Sheikh v. Union of India 

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta submitted that Abdul Sheikh, father of the petitioner Sanidul, was released on bail on April 30, 2021 pursuant to an April 15, 2020 order of the Supreme Court, and had consistently reported to the Kajolgaon Police Station every week, with no lapse recorded.

The Bench, comprising Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice K. Sema, directly questioned the State by asking “Has he been appearing every week in compliance with the Court’s bail conditions?” 

To which, the FT Counsel responded affirmatively, by stating that “Yes, it is an admitted fact. He appeared regularly as directed.”

However, the FT counsel attempted to argue that the bail should no longer shield the detainee from re-arrest or deportation, stating: “The bail was granted to those awaiting deportation during COVID. The Government is now preparing for deportation of such persons. The scenario has changed.”

The Court, however, expressed serious concern over this position, pointing out that no attempt had been made to formally recall or modify the bail and stated that “You have not made any prayer before this Court or before the Supreme Court to recall those bail orders. Once bail is granted, it continues unless recalled. You cannot detain someone simply because the government’s policy has shifted.”

The FT counsel contended that the bail was part of a “blanket order,” and not specific to any individual, and that deportation had always been legally permissible — it was only delayed due to pandemic conditions.

However, the bench stated that “Yes, but unless you recall bail, detention remains impermissible. Bail once granted cannot simply be ignored.”

When petitioner’s counsel asserted that continuing detention in light of bail and compliance was illegal, the Bench reiterated that a full hearing would occur only once the State filed its objection and provided that “Let your affidavit be filed. The Court will examine the legal basis you’re asserting.”

In its formal order, the Court recorded that:

• Bail had been granted in 2021 under Supreme Court direction.
• The detainee had complied with all bail conditions.
• The State was proposing to argue that detention is still lawful due to the finality of the FT’s opinion and the resumption of deportation efforts.

The State was directed to file a detailed affidavit laying out its legal position. The Court specified that the affidavit must be served at least six days before the next hearing to give the petitioner time to reply.

The matter is now listed for July 16, 2025, following the court’s summer vacation.

Details of the earlier hearings may be read here.

June 26: Reijya Khatun v. Union of India 

On June 26, the same Bench heard a structurally identical case, involving Majibur Rehman, husband of petitioner Reijya Khatun, who had been released on November 15, 2021 after more than two years in detention.

The State reiterated its earlier position: the release was part of the blanket implementation of the Supreme Court’s 2020 directions and was not rooted in a specific Gauhati High Court bail order. It argued again that the conditions that had earlier prevented deportation no longer existed, and that the State was now preparing to act on the FT opinion. However, as in the previous case, the State had not filed any application to cancel or vary the bail before taking Majibur Rehman back into custody.

Senior Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta, appearing for the petitioner, requested the Court to pass the same order as it had done in the Abdul Sheikh matter. The Bench agreed. It recorded the same facts and issued similar directions: the State is to file an affidavit setting out its legal justification for re-detention despite bail and compliance, and the petitioner may file a reply thereafter. This matter too has been listed for July 16.

Both hearings underscore a deeper legal question now facing the Gauhati High Court — can persons released on bail under court-supervised COVID directives, who have not breached any conditions of their release, be lawfully detained again merely because the State’s administrative position on deportation has shifted?

Details of the earlier hearings may be read here.

Key legal question before the High Court

The legal question now before the High Court is of substantial constitutional significance: Can a person who has been released on bail under the directions of a Constitutional Court, and who has never violated the terms of that bail, be re-arrested and placed in detention without cancellation of that bail order?

In both hearings, the petitioners stressed that continued detention of persons complying with court-imposed conditions amounts to illegal and arbitrary custody, particularly in the absence of any move by the State to recall or modify the original bail. The State, on the other hand, appears to be positioning itself on the claim that while the bail may have been lawfully granted at the time, it does not preclude deportation now that the barriers to enforcement have been lifted.

While the Court has not yet ruled on the legality of the renewed detention, it has recorded all relevant facts—particularly the undisputed bail compliance—and has granted the State one last opportunity to legally justify its position through affidavits. It has also directed that the petitioners must be given sufficient time to respond.

These petitions are part of a broader set of = proceedings currently before the Gauhati High Court, all dealing with the May 2025 re-detentions of Bengali-speaking Muslim residents of Assam who were released on long-standing bail and had been fulfilling all judicially imposed conditions. In most cases, the families were not served with arrest memos, were denied FIR registration, and had to approach the High Court for relief.

The orders passed on June 25 and 26 therefore not only shape the outcome for Abdul Sheikh and Majibur Rehman, but could also set a precedent on how the State must legally proceed before attempting to detain or deport individuals released under court orders, a question that will directly affect dozens of similar cases emerging across Assam. The Court’s eventual ruling in these two cases will likely set the tone for how other COVID-era bail orders are to be treated, and whether the State can override judicially protected liberty simply by citing administrative readiness to deport.

Related:

Gauhati HC orders verification of bail compliance in WP challenging illegal detention of Abdul Sheikh

Gauhati HC seeks verification of bail compliance in writ petition filed by Reijya Khatun for detained husband Majibur Rehman

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

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

The post No breach, no recall, yet detained again: Gauhati HC seeks affidavit from State for re-detentions of COVID-era released detainees appeared first on SabrangIndia.

While the Supreme Court’s last order rightly observed that “indefinite detention in detention camps violates basic rights”, including the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution and India’s obligations under international human rights law, by explicitly eschewing lack of process, the proceedings have been quoted for this hostile action by the state government.

As a result, the Assam Government has adopted an arbitrary “push –back” policy in the state. On  June 11, 2025 the Chief Minister of the state, Himanta Biswa Sharma went several steps further and defiantly announced that persons suspected to be illegal immigrants could be deported to Bangladesh even if their names appear in the National Register of Citizens (NRC).

On May 25, Manowara Begum, was detained by the Dhubri Police station, even though the petition for determination of her citizenship is pending before the Supreme Court. Further, on May 24, Khairul Islam and 8 others were picked up and detained by the Assam Police on charges of being a foreigner. These are some of the several cases of detentions and deportations being conducted without following due process.

Details of court proceedings in several of these matters, some supported by the Citizens for Justice and Peace may be read here, here and here and here.

The All BTC Minority Students Union (ABMSU) had filed a petition against this “push-back” policy directly in the Supreme Court on June 2, 2025 which was declined.

This short piece examines the ongoing deportation campaign that amounts to a grave violation of constitutionally guaranteed rights, including the Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21 and the Right to Equality under Article 14, in addition to breaching India’s international obligations under human rights law.

The functioning of Foreigner Tribunals

The current deportations target people who have been declared as Foreign Nationals and detained by one of the many FTs established in Assam. It therefore becomes essential to examine the functioning of these tribunals. FTs are quasi-judicial bodies which have been long criticized for arbitrary rulings, lack of independence, and procedural lapses.

As per the Foreigners (Tribunal) Order, 1964, the Central Government appoints the presiding members of the tribunal. They government also determines the terms of service including salary, term, etc. These powers have now been delegated to the State government in accordance to the Foreigners Act, 1946. This clearly shows executive overreach and violates of the principle of separation of powers.

Additionally, the tribunals put the onus on suspected people to prove their citizenship. An article by the caravan highlights the arbitrary procedure followed by FTs including the suspects not being provided with legal aid, the proceedings being held in private and opportunity to cross-examine the inspecting officer being denied. Further, ex-parte orders are routinely passed by these tribunals.

These practices violate Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention, and Article 14 of the ICCPR, which guarantees the Right to a fair trial. Additionally, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has affirmed that any deprivation of liberty resulting from an unfair trial falls within Category III of its classification and is, by definition, arbitrary.

They also constitute a clear breach of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which safeguards the right to life and liberty. Moreover, Article 22 provides safeguards against arbitrary detention and arrests. In the case of Anand Kundu v. Union of India, the Guwahati High Court held that the detention of suspects is preventive in nature, to ensure that the suspects do not vanish. However, even preventive detention has to follow due process as per Article 22 of the Constitution such as providing an opportunity of hearing before competent judges and informing of their charges. The Supreme Court reiterated this in the case of Pebam Ningol Mikoi Devi v. State of Manipur & Ors. In this case, the apex court emphasised that in India “the utmost importance is given to life and personal liberty of an individual”.

The Supreme Court has, itself on several occasions has overturned judgments by FTs and Guwahati High Court, declaring individuals’ foreigners even when they had provided adequate documents to prove their citizenship. In the case of Md. Rahim Ali v. The State of Assam, the Supreme Court overturned the Guwahati High Court’s judgment upholding the FT’s order declaring the Appellant a Foreigner. The Court also called the order a ‘grave miscarriage of justice’. The court’s direction for deportation in this light comes as a shock. Further, deportations when the detainees have not even exhausted their right to appeal is again a serious deprivation of rights, and sadly the Apex court that is supposed to uphold constitutional rights has taken a step back.

Another issue with these deportations is that these are being conducted without any consultation with the Government of Bangladesh. Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) grants the Right to a nationality and provides that no one should be arbitrarily deprived of the same. The lack of consultation, therefore, might lead to statelessness of such individuals and irreversible Human Rights violation. Moreover, deportation without due process clearly violates Article 19 of the Indian Constitution which guarantees the Right to Reside in India.

The current deportation drive also disproportionately targets the Muslim minority population of Assam violating Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The judicial failure to intervene in this matter reflects a broader systemic collapse in protecting the rights of the most vulnerable. The functioning of the Foreigners Tribunals and the arbitrary nature of the deportation drive collectively amount to a grave miscarriage of justice. In a democracy founded on the rule of law, such violations must not go unchecked. The judiciary, as the guardian of fundamental rights, must reclaim its role in safeguarding constitutional and human rights, especially for those who lack the means to defend themselves.

(The student is a fourth‑year law student at Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar)

Related:

Gauhati HC closes Habeas petition after Hasinur’s release from detention, declines compensation while acknowledging procedural default

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

The Immigrant Expulsion from Assam Act, 1950: Re-evaluating executive powers in light of judicial pronouncements and due process

Gauhati HC orders verification of police attendance records in re-arrest of two bail-compliant detainees in Torap Ali case

Gauhati HC grants visitation rights after state confirms Doyjan Bibi is in Kokrajhar Holding Centre

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

The post Pushed Back, Let Down: How the state has let down the marginalised in Assam appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A bench comprising Justices K.V. Viswanathan and N. Kotiswar Singh issued notice on the Special Leave Petition filed by the detainee, taking note of the prolonged lapse of time since the impugned order dated November 20, 2019. The Court expressed its intent to first ascertain the present status of the petitioner from the Tamil Nadu state authorities before any further steps are taken.

The petitioner, who has been in India for nine years (three in prison and six in the Trichy Special Camp), approached the apex court after the Madras High Court, in December 2024, rejected his plea for permission to visit the Swiss Embassy. According to his counsel, Senior Advocate Jayant Muth Raj, the petitioner fears for his life if deported to Sri Lanka, having lost several family members, including his father, brother, and sister-in-law, in targeted killings during and after the war.

“Don’t deport me… all my family members have been eliminated… I am not a threat to India… If Switzerland is willing to give me a humanitarian visa, I will go there instead of getting killed in Sri Lanka,” Muth Raj submitted on behalf of the petitioner, as per a report in LiveLaw. He also informed the bench that the Swiss Embassy had asked the petitioner to appear in person to complete visa formalities, and that the petitioner was willing to bear the cost of a security escort to facilitate his visit.

The petitioner had earlier faced charges in a human trafficking case, but was acquitted in 2019. Despite this, he continues to remain in administrative detention under the shadow of a deportation order.

When Justice Viswanathan asked why the matter needed to be listed during partial working days, counsel emphasised the urgency of the situation and detailed the brutal executions faced by the petitioner’s family members even after the war had ended. He argued that returning the petitioner to Sri Lanka would amount to a death sentence.

In view of these submissions, and given that the deportation order is over five years old, the Court granted an interim stay on deportation and directed the authorities to respond. The matter will next be heard on August 4, 2025.

“The petitioner challenges an order dated 20.11.2019 directing his deportation. It is nearly six years since the said order is made. Also a prayer is made to permit him to physically appear at Switzerland Embassy to process his Visa application.” (Para 4)

“Considering the fact that the deportation order is about five years and six months old, we would like to ascertain the present status from respondent No.2 – State. In the meantime, the deportation of the petitioner is stayed.” (Para 5)

The June 24 order of the Supreme Court may be read below.

Earlier SC bench refused relief: “India is not a Dharamshala,” Said Justice Datta while rejecting Tamil refugee’s plea

In sharp contrast to the June 24 order passed by the Viswanathan-Kotiswar bench, a different bench of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Dipankar Datta, had in May refused to grant relief to another Sri Lankan Tamil national who had sought protection from deportation after completing his sentence under the UAPA.

During the hearing, which took place on May 19, Justice Datta made strong oral observations, questioning the very premise of allowing such individuals to remain in India:
“Is India to host refugees from all over the world? We are struggling with 140 crore people. This is not a dharamshala that we can entertain foreign nationals from all over.”

According to the report in LiveLaw, the petitioner had argued that he was blacklisted in Sri Lanka due to his alleged association with the LTTE during the 2009 war, and feared arrest, torture or worse if sent back. He also pointed out that he had already served his reduced seven-year sentence and was languishing in detention without any concrete deportation process. His wife and children were residing in India, and his son was suffering from a congenital heart condition.

But the bench, also comprising Justice K. Vinod Chandran, showed no inclination to intervene. Justice Datta questioned the petitioner’s very right to seek protection under Indian constitutional law: “What is your right to settle here?” As per the report in LiveLaw, Justice Datta added that the right to reside or settle in India under Article 19 is available only to Indian citizens and asserted that there was no violation of Article 21 since the petitioner’s liberty had been curtailed following due process of law.

When counsel highlighted the genuine threat to life in Sri Lanka, Justice Datta curtly remarked:
“Go to some other country.”

No interim protection was granted. The Court refused to stay the Madras High Court’s direction that the petitioner must leave India immediately after completing his sentence and remain confined to a refugee camp until his deportation.

This unyielding posture sits uneasily beside the more humanitarian approach taken by the Viswanathan-Kotiswar bench, and exposes the deep inconsistencies in how refugee protection is being adjudicated in India’s highest court. 

The May 19 order of the Supreme Court may be read below.

Related:

Gauhati HC closes Habeas petition after Hasinur’s release from detention, declines compensation while acknowledging procedural default

Gauhati HC seeks report on detained Abdul Sheikh’s weekly police appearances in compliance with bail conditions

J&K High court orders repatriation of 63-year-old woman deported to Pakistan without due process

Gauhati HC Orders Verification of compliance with Bail Conditions in petition filed by Reijya Khatun for detained husband

The post Contradictory Calls: SC halts one Tamil refugee’s deportation, denies another citing ‘not a Dharamshala’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Court, presided over by Justice Rahul Bharti, observed that Rashid’s deportation appeared arbitrary and in violation of her legal status as a Long-Term Visa (LTV) holder who had resided in India for nearly four decades. The matter came before the Court through a writ petition filed by her daughter, Falak Zahoor.

The petitioner’s husband, Sheikh Zahoor Ahmed, informed the Court that Rakshanda had no family or support in Pakistan and was suffering from multiple serious ailments. Her deportation, he submitted, had left her vulnerable, abandoned, and at grave risk.

The Court took serious note of these submissions, underscoring that in matters where human life and dignity are imperilled, the judiciary is obligated to act as a constitutional protector—even in the absence of a full adjudication on the merits.

“Human rights are the most sacrosanct component of a human life and, therefore, there are occasions when a constitutional court is supposed to come up with SOS like indulgence notwithstanding the merits and demerits of a case which can be adjudicated only upon in due course of time and therefore, this Court is coming up with a direction to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India to bring back the petitioner from her deportation.” (Para 3)

Justice Bharti noted that at the time of her deportation, Rashid was a documented LTV holder—a status that ought to have protected her from arbitrary removal. Yet, without any formal deportation order or due process, she was allegedly “forced out” of the country as part of a broader post-carnage operation by government authorities.

“This Court is bearing in mind background that the reference that the petitioner was having LTV status at relevant point of time which per-se may not have warranted her deportation but without examining her case in better perspective and coming up with a proper order with respect to her deportation from the authorities concerned, still she came to be forced out.” (Para 4)

Referring to the “exceptional nature of facts and circumstances,” the Court issued extraordinary directions to the Ministry of Home Affairs:

“Given the exceptional nature of facts and circumstances of the case whereby the petitioner-Rakshanda Rashid wife of Sheikh Zahoor Ahmed has been purportedly deported to Pakistan in the recent drive undertaken by the Government of India post Pahalgam carnage, this Court is constrained to direct the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India to retrieve the petitioner back to J&K, India so as to facilitate the reunion of the petitioner with her husband-Sheikh Zahoor Ahmed in Jammu.” (Para 5)

The Ministry has been given ten days from the date of the order (June 6, 2025) to ensure compliance. The matter is now listed for July 1, 2025, when a compliance report is to be submitted before the Court.

The order, marked by urgency and empathy, sets a significant precedent in cases involving the deportation of foreign nationals long-residing in India under legal permits. It highlights the responsibility of the state to uphold due process, especially when fundamental rights and humanitarian considerations intersect.

The complete order may be read below.

A judicial pushback amid rising arbitrary deportations

This order comes at a crucial moment. Across the country, particularly in the state of Assam, there has been a surge in the deportation of Bengali-speaking individuals, most of whom are Muslims, many of them declared “foreigners” by opaque and controversial Foreigners Tribunals. Numerous cases have been documented where individuals have been picked up and sent across the Bangladesh border without any written deportation order, legal representation, or family notification.

In several instances, courts and commissions have been bypassed altogether. Women, children, and elderly persons have been subjected to these clandestine removals, often despite having ongoing legal cases, bail orders, or valid documents. The pattern has alarmed civil liberties groups, who describe it as a systemic erosion of constitutional guarantees like due process, dignity, and the right to be heard.

Against this grim national backdrop, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court’s order stands out for upholding the principle that even those classified as “foreigners” or “non-citizens” are entitled to basic constitutional protections. The judgment affirms that deportation—when carried out without transparency, legal backing, or humanitarian consideration—amounts to a violation of both law and conscience.

This order sends a strong message: that constitutional protections do not end at the margins of nationality, and that humanitarian justice must prevail where executive action falters.

Related:

Gauhati HC again grants visitation in Torap Ali petition challenging re-detention of uncle as affidavit opposing claims of regular police reporting is filed

Gauhati HC seeks verification of bail compliance in writ petition filed by Reijya Khatun for detained husband Majibur Rehman

Gauhati HC closes habeas corpus petition after release of bail-compliant detainee, declines prayer for compensation

“State says handed over to BSF, Found Unconscious in Bijni” Gauhati HC demands answers after Samsul Ali returns home unconscious

How the Rajubala case in the Supreme Court, its genesis and context has now become the ground for ‘state expulsion”

The post J&K High court orders repatriation of 63-year-old woman deported to Pakistan without due process appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In the continued writ petition proceeding filed by Reijya Khatun, the Gauhati High Court on June 20 directed the Foreigners Tribunal (FT) counsel to verify whether Majibur Rehman, her husband, had been complying with weekly police station reporting conditions at the time of his recent re-detention.

Appearing before the bench comprising Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Malasri Nandi, the petitioner’s counsel confirmed that, following earlier court orders, the family had been allowed to visit Majibur Rehman at the Kokrajhar Holding Centre and obtain his signature on a vakalatnama. The petitioner is now pressing for restoration of bail, citing full compliance with conditions since his release in November 2021. CJP has been providing legal aid to the petitioner in the present case.

Details of the previous hearing may be read here and here.

Court records bail history and prior compliance

The High Court recorded that Majibur Rehman was declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal (Chirang) and subsequently detained. However, upon completing two years in detention, he was released on November 15, 2021 under Supreme Court–mandated guidelines for long-term detainees, specifically those under Suo Motu WP(C) No. 1/2020.

The counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta, referring to Paragraph 13 of the writ petition, submitted that Majibur Rehman had been regularly reporting to the police station as per the bail conditions, with the last reported attendance recorded on May 21, 2025 — just days before he was allegedly picked up again without prior notice or legal process.

Judicial Direction: FT counsel to verify reporting claims

In response, the Division Bench directed the FT counsel to verify the claims of weekly police station attendance since the date of release in November 2021. The verification report is expected to be crucial in determining whether the State had any legal basis to detain Majibur Rehman again without first moving for bail cancellation or presenting breach of conditions.

The matter is now listed for further hearing on June 25, 2025, by which time:

• The FT counsel is expected to submit verification of police reporting records;
• The Court may take up the petitioner’s prayer for restoration of bail or other relief;
• The legality of re-detention without judicial revocation of bail could come under deeper scrutiny.

Context and similarity to parallel petitions

This case mirrors several other petitions heard recently by the High Court, where persons released under COVID-era bail — having spent more than two years in detention and fulfilling reporting conditions — were picked up again in May 2025 without apparent process or notice to family.

In all such cases that are currently being heard in the Gauhati High Court, including petition filed Sanidul Sheikh for his father Abdul Sheikh and Torap Ali for his uncles Abu Bakkar and Akbar Ali, the Bench has now begun focusing on the verification of bail compliance as a threshold issue in evaluating the legality of renewed detention.

The order may be read here:

Related:

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

The Immigrant Expulsion from Assam Act, 1950: Re-evaluating executive powers in light of judicial pronouncements and due process

Gauhati HC orders verification of police attendance records in re-arrest of two bail-compliant detainees in Torap Ali case

Gauhati HC grants visitation rights after state confirms Doyjan Bibi is in Kokrajhar Holding Centre

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

The post Gauhati HC Orders Verification of compliance with Bail Conditions in petition filed by Reijya Khatun for detained husband appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Gauhati High Court on June 20 allowed Torap Ali, a petitioner from Assam, to again visit his two detained uncles — Abu Bakkar and Akbar Ali — at the Kokrajhar Holding Centre, along with one family member and one advocate. The visitation was granted to enable the petitioner to take instructions and file a response to the State’s affidavit alleging that his uncles were not complying with their bail conditions prior to their sudden detention in May 2025.

The said petition is part of a broader series of cases where Bengali-speaking Muslim families in Assam have approached the Court after their relatives — previously released on COVID-era bail after being declared foreigners — were picked up without fresh legal process, often without any notice or documentation provided to the family.

Background: Bail under COVID guidelines, followed by re-arrest

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.

Details of the case may be read here.

What happened in previous hearings

• On May 28 and 29, the Court issued notice and asked the State to disclose where Abu Bakkar and Akbar Ali were being held.
• On June 4, the Court asked the Foreigners Tribunal (FT) counsel to obtain verification from the local police station about whether the detained men were complying with bail. Family was granted visitation rights.
• On June 16, when the Court asked whether the FT’s foreigner declaration had been challenged, the petitioner’s counsel admitted that it had not. While the Court declined to grant protection from deportation, it nonetheless directed the SP (Border) to verify whether the bail conditions were followed.

Details of the hearings may be read here.

June 20: Visitation allowed, deportation not addressed

At the latest hearing:

• The FT counsel submitted that an affidavit from SP (Border), Kambhogi will been filed that very day. The affidavit, the Court noted, is opposed to the petitioner’s claims of bail compliance.
• Counsel for Torap Ali requested visitation rights to meet the two detainees in order to take instructions and prepare a formal response affidavit. The request was granted.
• The Court ordered that Torap Ali, one family member, and one advocate may meet Abu Bakkar and Akbar Ali at the Kokrajhar Holding Centre.
• The case was listed next for July 14, 2025.

The petitioner’s counsel also raised concerns about the risk of the detainees being pushed across the border into Bangladesh, and asked the Court to ensure that any deportation not occur without legal process.

However, the Bench declined to enter such protection, stating:

“We cannot presume illegal pushing (out) by the State. There is a declaration of foreigner status that has not been challenged.”

That said, the Court granted liberty for urgent out-of-turn listing if any adverse or coercive action is taken before the next hearing.

The order may be read here:

Related:

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

The Immigrant Expulsion from Assam Act, 1950: Re-evaluating executive powers in light of judicial pronouncements and due process

Gauhati HC orders verification of police attendance records in re-arrest of two bail-compliant detainees in Torap Ali case

Gauhati HC grants visitation rights after state confirms Doyjan Bibi is in Kokrajhar Holding Centre

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

The post Visitation again allowed by Gauhati HC in Torap Ali petition as affidavit opposing claims of regular police reporting is filed appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Gauhati High Court on Thursday, June 20, officially closed the habeas corpus petition filed by Mozida Begum, after confirming that her son Hasinur, also known as Hachinur, had been released in compliance with the Court’s June 16, 2025 bail order. While acknowledging that the re-arrest violated standing bail, the Court declined the petitioner’s plea for compensation, citing that the writ challenging the original Foreigners Tribunal (FT) declaration remains pending with the Gauhati High Court.

Details of previous hearings may be read here, here and here.

Background of the case

Hasinur was declared a foreigner by an FT and detained for over two years before being released on June 7, 2021, under a Division Bench order of the Gauhati High Court, which implemented Supreme Court–issued COVID-19 bail guidelines from Suo Motu WP(C) 1/2020.

Since then, he had been complying with all bail conditions, including weekly appearances at the Goalpara Police Station. His last recorded appearance was on May 19, 2025.

Despite this, on May 25, 2025, he was allegedly picked up from home at 11 PM by border police officials, without an arrest memo or magistrate production. He was taken to the Kokrajhar Holding Centre and kept incommunicado, triggering a habeas petition from his mother on June 4.

Chronology of the proceedings in the High Court

June 6, 2025: Issuance of notice

• The habeas corpus petition was taken up for the first time before the Division Bench of Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Malasri Nandi.
• The petition alleged that Hasinur had been re-arrested on the night of May 25, 2025, despite already being on bail since June 2021 and complying with its conditions.
• No arrest memo or formal warrant was presented, and his whereabouts were concealed from the family.
• The Court issued notice to the State and the FT counsel. Notice was also issued on the interim prayer for bail.
• The matter was made returnable on June 11, 2025.

June 11, 2025: Visitation granted, attendance verification ordered

• Counsel for the petitioner submitted Annexure 4 — a police-station-signed attendance sheet showing regular appearances by Hasinur, including on May 5 and May 12, 2025.
• The Court granted visitation rights to Mozida Begum and up to two family members, permitting them to meet Hasinur at the Kokrajhar Holding Centre.
• The signature on vakalatnama was allowed to be taken during the visit.
• The Court ordered the copy of the writ petition and Annexure 4 to be sent to the Officer-in-Charge of Goalpara Police Station for verification.
• It directed FT counsel to facilitate quick transmission of these documents to both the SP (Border), Goalpara and the police station by email.
• The matter was listed for June 16, 2025.

June 16, 2025: Court declares continued detention illegal, grants immediate bail

• The petitioner’s counsel confirmed that visitation had occurred and reiterated that Hasinur had been complying with his bail conditions.
• The Court took strong exception to the re-arrest, especially given that the 2021 bail order was never cancelled.
• The Bench observed in its order that: “Since bail had been granted to the son of the petitioner on 7/6/2021, the subsequent detention becomes expressly illegal” and “It becomes the duty of the Court to protect the fundamental rights of the detained person. Illegal detention cannot be allowed even for a minute.”
• The Court rejected the State’s request for adjournment, noting that failure to seek instructions could not be used to delay compliance with judicial orders.
• It ordered the immediate release of Hasinur from the Kokrajhar Holding Centre.
• The SP (Border), Goalpara, was directed to ensure that the order was carried out.
• The matter was listed for June 20, 2025, for confirmation of compliance.

June 20 hearing: Release confirmed, compensation refused

At the final hearing, the State submitted an inter-departmental communication dated June 19, 2025, from the Senior SP, Goalpara to the IGP (Border), Assam, confirming that Hasinur was released after a medical check-up in compliance with the Court’s order.

Counsel for the petitioner pressed for monetary compensation, arguing that the detention had been clearly unlawful, as the State had re-arrested someone already on judicial bail without recall or review of that order.

While the Court acknowledged the procedural default, stating: “There was an admitted default on the part of the authority in arresting the detained person despite the bail order passed earlier in 2021”, it declined to entertain the prayer for compensation, stating:

“In view of the fact that the challenge to the FT order declaring the son of the petitioner a foreigner is pending before this Court, the prayer for compensation is refused.”

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of and marked as closed.

This case is a key example of how Assam’s foreigner detection regime is facing judicial scrutiny for violating due process and liberty rights. The Court reaffirmed that bail granted by judicial order cannot be set aside by executive action, and that the State must follow procedural safeguards, especially when liberty is at stake.

The case sets an important precedent on:

• Respecting standing bail orders;
• The unlawfulness of re-arrest without judicial revocation;
• And the importance of verifying compliance through police station attendance logs.

Although compensation was denied, the case has highlighted systemic failures and reinforced that any deprivation of liberty must withstand judicial scrutiny.

The order may be read here:

Related:

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

The Immigrant Expulsion from Assam Act, 1950: Re-evaluating executive powers in light of judicial pronouncements and due process

Gauhati HC orders verification of police attendance records in re-arrest of two bail-compliant detainees in Torap Ali case

Gauhati HC grants visitation rights after state confirms Doyjan Bibi is in Kokrajhar Holding Centre

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

The post Gauhati HC closes Habeas petition after Hasinur’s release from detention, declines compensation while acknowledging procedural default appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a writ petition raising critical questions about the recent re-detention of individuals previously released under High Court–granted COVID bail, the Gauhati High Court on June 20 directed the Foreigners Tribunal (FT) counsel to send the relevant court order to the Superintendent of Police (Border), Chirang, for verification of whether Abdul Sheikh — the father of the petitioner, Sanidul Sheikh — had been complying with weekly police station attendance conditions since his release on bail in April 2021.

The Court’s direction came after the counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta, informed the bench that a court-permitted visitation had taken place at the Kokrajhar Holding Centre, and that the petitioners were pressing for bail on the basis of the detained person having been reporting weekly to the police station in accordance with conditions imposed in the High Court’s release order dated April 15, 2020. CJP has been providing legal aid to the petitioner in the present case.

Details of the previous hearing may be read here and here.

Court: Compliance with bail condition must be verified before detention is justified

Reading from Paragraph 13 of the writ petition, the Court noted that the petitioner had specifically stated that Abdul Sheikh was regularly visiting the designated police station, with the last visit recorded on May 21, 2025, just days before his sudden re-detention. The petition relies on Annexure 6, which contains documentation of his reporting. Justice Kalyan Rai Surana, speaking for the Division Bench also comprising Justice Malasri Nandi, noted an important lapse in the State’s conduct:

“The point is not whether there is a challenge to the foreigner status or not. The recalling of the bail orders was not filed. Someone must have been overlooking that.”

This statement highlights that no application had been filed by the State to recall or cancel the original bail order, under which Abdul Sheikh had been released after more than two years in detention on April 30, 2021, as per the COVID-19 regime laid down by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu WP(C) 1/2020 and adopted by the Gauhati High Court.

Despite this, he was picked up again in May 2025, with no indication of breach of bail terms, nor any fresh judicial order.

Petitioner seeks bail restoration

Advocate Das emphasised that the present writ petition was not only seeking to trace Abdul Sheikh’s location, but also challenging the legality of re-detention, since there had been full compliance with bail requirements. The petitioner demanded that his father be restored to bail, given that there had been no breach of bail conditions, and that he had been detained again without justification.

The Court, instead of passing immediate orders on bail, directed the FT counsel to transmit the court’s order to the SP (Border), Chirang, with the specific instruction to verify the claim of regular weekly reporting by Abdul Sheikh since his release in April 2021.

Court’s Direction: Verification of weekly attendance

Taking this into account, the Court directed that:

• The FT counsel shall transmit the court’s order to the SP (Border), Chirang);
• The SP (Border) is to verify whether Abdul Sheikh was regularly reporting to the police station pursuant to his release on April 30, 2021;
• The matter will now be listed on June 25, 2025, for further orders after verification.

The Court made no decision yet on the prayer for restoration of bail, but the verification of compliance with earlier judicially sanctioned liberty now becomes the centrepiece of the case.

The order may be viewed here:

Background: Release on COVID bail, and return to custody without notice

Abdul Sheikh was declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal, and was detained in a detention centre for over two years. He was released on April 30, 2021, under a High Court order dated April 15, 2020, based on the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 directions for decongestion.

Like many similarly placed detainees, he had continued to report weekly to the local police station, without violation. Yet in May 2025, he was suddenly picked up again and transferred to the Kokrajhar Holding Centre, with no cancellation of his bail and no production before a magistrate.

His family filed a writ petition in May. At the June 9 hearing, the State confirmed that Abdul Sheikh was currently lodged at the Kokrajhar Holding Centre. The High Court granted visitation rights, allowing Sanidul Sheikh and up to two family members to meet him. The Court also permitted the family to obtain his signature on a vakalatnama to formalize legal representation.

This is one of several petitions now before the High Court involving similar circumstances wherein COVID-era bail beneficiaries who continued to report regularly to police but were picked up again, allegedly without warrants, production, or even basic disclosure to families.

Related:

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

The Immigrant Expulsion from Assam Act, 1950: Re-evaluating executive powers in light of judicial pronouncements and due process

Gauhati HC orders verification of police attendance records in re-arrest of two bail-compliant detainees in Torap Ali case

Gauhati HC grants visitation rights after state confirms Doyjan Bibi is in Kokrajhar Holding Centre

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

The post Gauhati HC seeks report on detained Abdul Sheikh’s weekly police appearances in compliance with bail conditions appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On June 20, the Gauhati High Court was confronted with a stunning reversal in a case it has been monitoring closely for nearly a month. Samsul Ali, a 62-year-old resident of Chirang district, whom the State had officially claimed to have handed over to the Border Security Force (BSF) during the earlier hearing, was reported by his family to have been found unconscious in Bijni town.

Appearing before the Division Bench of Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Malasri Nandi, the counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Mrinmoy Das, submitted that Samsul Ali had been found in an unconscious state in Bijni town two or three days ago, and was brought home by villagers. He is currently at home, Das said, and is prepared to appear before any authority as required.

The revelation came in the hearing of Writ Petition filed by his son Bakkar Ali, who had approached the High Court after Samsul was picked up by Border Police on May 25, 2025 and subsequently went missing for weeks. This statement directly contradicted the State’s previous claim—recorded in Court orders dated June 9 and 10—that Samsul had been formally handed over to the BSF Sector Headquarters in Panbari, Dhubri, on May 26, 2025. (Details of the previous hearings may be read here and here.) CJP has been providing legal aid to the petitioner in the present case.

Now, with Samsul Ali found unconscious in Assam, and with no explanation from the State, the Court is faced with a chilling question: What really happened to him after he was “handed over”?

Petitioner: “He was found unconscious in Bijni, and he’s now back home”

Appearing before the Division Bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Malasri Nandi, Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta, counsel for the petitioner, stated:

“The detained person who was said to be handed over to the BSF has been recovered unconscious in Bijni. He is now home. The villagers brought him back. We are filing an affidavit. He will be produced wherever required.”

The Court acknowledged the update and asked that an affidavit be filed at the earliest to formally place this development on record.

High Court: “If he was handed over to BSF, how did he end up in Bijni?”

The Bench, visibly troubled by the State’s silence, remarked: “Get information. If he was handed over, how could he be found elsewhere?”

The State had earlier maintained through oral submissions that Samsul handed over by Assam Police to the Border Security Force (BSF) Sector Headquarters at Panbari on May 26, 2025, in accordance with instructions received by the FT counsel. But this new development throws that version into serious doubt.

A Constitutional Dilemma: Whether to protect or provoke retaliatory detention

The petitioner’s counsel urged the Court to grant interim protection from detention, arguing that Samsul had already been held for three years before being released on bail under the bail regime outlined by the Supreme Court in SCLSC v. Union of India (2019), releasing long-term detenues on bail and that he had complied with police reporting conditions ever since. It had been provided that with his last appearance logged on May 21, 2025 — just four days before his pickup.

“The State has a duty to follow procedure. The man was on bail for years. He was reporting to the Police Station regularly,” said the counsel.

However, the Bench hesitated. It acknowledged a fear that granting a direction for explanation or protection might lead the authorities to re-detain Samsul Ali immediately, using the argument that he had “absconded from the BSF holding.”

“I’m just thinking… The State said he was given to the BSF. Now he’s home. If we pass an order now, the authorities will say he absconded. He will be re-arrested,” Justice Surana observed. “Think over it.”

The petitioner’s counsel was granted a short recess to consider how to proceed.

Counsel: “We are asking the state to follow the law”

After resuming, Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta clarified:

“We are not saying he cannot be deported. But even the State, in earlier affidavits, has set out the procedure: diplomatic coordination, consular confirmation, valid travel documents. None of that was followed here.”

To a light remark by the Bench comparing the case to U.S. deportations, he responded:

“In the U.S., they didn’t deport people in secret. The person was escorted to the airport, and the receiving country received them openly. What happened here is fundamentally different.”

The petitioner’s counsel informed the Court that Samsul Ali was now safe at home and would be produced before any authority as required, but urged the Court to ensure no further detention or coercive action is taken against him, given the extraordinary circumstances.

Final Order: Appear before SP (Border), deportation only through proper procedure

The Court issued a cautiously worded but clear direction:

• Samsul Ali is to appear before the Superintendent of Police (Border), Chirang, to record his presence;
• The petitioner will file an affidavit formally recording the reappearance of Samsul Ali and the events surrounding it;
• The respondents are to file the older court orders and explain their position on how a person allegedly handed over to the BSF was found unconscious in a village in Assam;
• The Court recorded that in the event any steps are taken toward deportation, the proper procedure must be followed — including any process laid down in earlier State affidavits or relevant law;
• The matter is now listed for July 16, 2025.

Importantly, while the Court did not grant interim protection against re-detention, expressing concern that a formal direction might be contradictory to the law, it implicitly warned that deportation attempts without due process would violate the law. Such due process would, in all likelihood, also involve recalling the order releasing Samsul Ali on bail in 2019.

The order of the Gauhati High Court may be read below.

Due process before deportation has been recently spelt out, again, in the ongoing Rajubala case in the Supreme Court of India (pending since 2021). The process includes specifically:

• Submission of Nationality Verification Requests (NVRs) to foreign country (presumably) Bangladesh
• Issuance of travel permits
• Public documentation of deportation orders

This means that late night sweeps, expulsions and cloak and dagger procedures have been clearly prohibited.

Background: Three years in detention, bail and then disappearance

Samsul Ali had earlier been declared a foreigner by an FT, but was released on bail in 2019 after completing three years in detention, under directions issued by the Supreme Court — even before the COVID-19 pandemic. His bail required regular reporting to the police, and it was uncontested that he had complied with those conditions.

On May 25, 2025, Samsul was suddenly picked up from his home in Chirang district. No arrest memo was issued, and his whereabouts remained unknown for days. When his son filed the present writ petition, the State initially refused to disclose any information. Only after repeated court hearings did the FT counsel submit that Samsul had been “handed over to BSF Panbari” on May 26, yet no deportation memo, documentation, or diplomatic clearance was presented.

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.

A case that challenges the integrity of deportation procedures

The present Writ Petition has exposed what appears to be a pattern of covert or undocumented deportation attempts of Bengali-speaking Muslims in Assam, outside the knowledge of family, without judicial oversight, and without procedural safeguards.

Samsul Ali’s case is now a rare, perhaps the first instance where a person claimed by the State to have been “handed over to the BSF” has resurfaced, unconscious and abandoned, raising serious concerns about what transpired during the purported handover and the situation in which the detained person was kept.

His reappearance — undocumented, unexplained, and entirely outside formal processes — raises questions of constitutional proportions: Was there an attempt to deport without following legal procedure? Was the man pushed across the border without clearance? Was there a failure of coordination? Or something worse? With the next hearing scheduled for July 16, the Gauhati High Court may be called upon to address not just one case of illegal custody — but the growing evidence of a shadow deportation regime operating outside the bounds of Indian constitutional law.

Related:

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

The Immigrant Expulsion from Assam Act, 1950: Re-evaluating executive powers in light of judicial pronouncements and due process

Gauhati HC orders verification of police attendance records in re-arrest of two bail-compliant detainees in Torap Ali case

Gauhati HC grants visitation rights after state confirms Doyjan Bibi is in Kokrajhar Holding Centre

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

The post Gauhati HC orders state to explain how a man deemed to be “handed over to BSF” is found unconscious in a village in Assam appeared first on SabrangIndia.