Justice Dr. S.K. Panigrahi’s judgment in Kumarpur Sasan Juba Gosti Kendra v. State of Odisha marks a strong judicial stand against the rise of “bulldozer justice,” where state authorities act in haste, often with impunity, demolishing property without observing due process or waiting for judicial outcomes. The Court described the demolition not as an administrative misstep but as an act of executive aggression conducted “while the law was still at work.”

“This is not a procedural misstep. It reflects a troubling pattern, where the machinery of the State appears to act not in aid of the law, but in anticipation of avoiding its outcome. The space between a matter being heard and a decision being delivered is not an empty procedural formality. It is a phase in which the law is still at work. The authority of the appellate forum does not vanish simply because it is silent for a moment. That silence is deliberate. It reflects the court’s duty to think, not the executive’s opportunity to act.” (Para 12)

Factual Matrix: A community centre razed in defiance of judicial orders

The case concerned a community structure (Gosthigruha) situated on 0.05 acres of grazing land (gochar) in Balipur, Athagarh, Cuttack district. Though classified as Rakhita Anabadi land under the Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 (OPLE Act), the structure had existed in some form since 1985, repaired after the 1999 cyclone, and reconstructed between 2016 and 2018 using public funds from the “Ama Gaon Ama Vikas Yojana” and the MLA-LAD fund.

For over three decades, the structure was actively used for public welfare activities—yoga camps, health check-ups, awareness campaigns, and outreach programmes. The State itself had funded the structure, and no recorded objection had ever been raised by authorities prior to 2024.

In July 2024, eviction proceedings were initiated under the OPLE Act. Petitioners challenged these proceedings before the High Court, which disposed of the petitions on August 16, 2024, directing them to apply for settlement under Section 8A of the Act. When this application was rejected on flimsy grounds—including lack of registration and documentary gaps—the petitioners filed an appeal before the Sub-Collector and simultaneously sought judicial protection.

On November 29, 2024, the Orissa High Court ordered that no eviction was to take place during the pendency of the appeal. A fresh eviction notice was nevertheless issued on December 5, 2024. The Court reiterated its protective order on December 13, 2024, restraining demolition until the appellate process concluded.

In open defiance of this, demolition was carried out the very next morning, on December 14, less than 18 hours after the Sub-Collector concluded the appeal hearing and reserved the order (at 4 PM), and just an hour after a demolition notice was suddenly affixed (at 5:15 PM).

Observations of the Court

“A deliberate act taken while judicial consideration was underway”: Justice Panigrahi’s ruling is remarkable for its constitutional clarity, moral tone, and emphasis on institutional accountability. The Court concluded that:

“What makes the episode all the more concerning is not merely the breach of procedural safeguards, but the deeper disregard to constitutional process and institutional boundaries. The demolition did not occur in a moment of administrative necessity. It was not the outcome of a duly completed adjudicatory process. It was carried out while the matter was still under active judicial consideration, with the appellate authority having reserved its decision. No final order had been pronounced.” (Para 11)

The Court noted that the executive had ample knowledge of pending judicial directions. The demolition, it held, was executed not just in violation of legal mandates but with the intent to frustrate judicial scrutiny. This conduct, the Court declared, not only breached the rule of law but constituted a direct assault on the very architecture of constitutional governance.

Condemnation of “Bulldozer Justice”: The Court also expressed concern about what it termed an emerging pattern of “bulldozer justice”—the use of demolition as a tool of state power without regard to legality, process, or proportionality.

“The facts of this case echo a growing and troubling pattern commonly referred to as “bulldozer justice”, where executive power, backed by machinery rather than reason, supplants legal process. The use of demolition as a tool of enforcement, absent procedural compliance and judicial finality, transforms what should be a lawful act into a coercive one. It is not the bulldozer per se that offends constitutional sensibilities, but the ease with which it is deployed before the law has spoken its final word. In a system governed by law, force must follow reason, not precede it. Where the reverse occurs, the legitimacy of State action begins to erode, and with it, the credibility of institutions tasked with upholding the rule of law.” (Para 25)

The judgment emphasised that in a constitutional democracy, force must follow reason, not precede it. The failure to uphold judicial restraint not only violated the rule of law but “demolished the dignity of law-abiding citizens who sought protection not through confrontation but through courts.”

Violation of Supreme Court directives in “Demolition of Structures” case: The Court applied the binding procedural safeguards issued by the Supreme Court in In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures, W.P.(C) No.295/2022, decided on November 13, 2024. Those directives, issued under Article 142, mandate that:

1. A 15-day show cause notice must precede any demolition.
2. A reasoned order must explain why demolition is necessary.
3. Appellate remedies must be meaningfully available.
4. The act must be video-graphed and documented.
5. All orders must be uploaded to a public portal.

In this case, none of these were followed. The Court held in its order that:

“The binding procedural safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures (Supra), are not aspirational guidelines, they are enforceable mandates. The Supreme Court, invoking its power under Article 142, did not request compliance. It imposed it. These directives must be treated not as peripheral suggestions but as minimum constitutional thresholds. The failure to issue a 15-day show cause notice, the absence of a reasoned order, the denial of appellate remedy, and the lack of video documentation are not merely checklist oversights. They are compound violations that nullify the very idea of lawful governance. A Tahasildar who chooses to discard these procedural obligations in favour of expediency does not act on behalf of the State, he acts against it.” (Para 21)

Article 300-A as a shield, not an ornament: The Court grounded its reasoning in the constitutional protection of property under Article 300-A, holding that:

“What is even more troubling is that the consequences of such executive haste are not merely institutional or procedural, they are deeply human. Law is not merely a tool to regulate action; it is also a shield against arbitrary force. When the State fails to pause where law requires stillness, it is not only the structure that is lost, but the trust of those whose rights depend on the process being fair and complete. This case, therefore, cannot be assessed solely through the lens of administrative law. It must also be understood as an instance where a constitutionally protected interest in property was extinguished not through judicial determination, but through executive fiat.” (Para 14)

It drew upon the Supreme Court’s rulings in:

• N. Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy, (2008) 15 SCC 517
• Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 596

Both judgments affirmed that property rights cannot be extinguished except by due process and statutory sanction.

Justice Panigrahi added:

“What is at stake here is not the legality of one demolition, but the integrity of a constitutional culture. When executive action arrogates to itself the role of judge, jury, and executioner, the harm that follows is not merely institutional, it is civic. In a democratic society governed by the rule of law, process is not an inconvenience to be bypassed when found burdensome. It is the very architecture that lends legitimacy to State action. The moment that process becomes expendable, so does the public’s faith in the neutrality of governance. This Court is duty-bound to restore that balance, for what is lost here is not only a building, but also the belief that law is a shield against arbitrariness.” (Para 17)

Decision of the Court

Responsibility and public trust- Tahasildar held personally liable: The Court did not stop at abstract condemnation. It fixed personal accountability upon the Tahasildar who directed the demolition, observing that:

“The office of the Tahasildar is not a mere administrative post. It is a position that carries the weight of constitutional responsibility, particularly when it comes to enforcing the law at the ground level. To act in a manner that anticipates and potentially frustrates the outcome of pending legal proceedings is a serious breach of duty. This Court cannot overlook the fact that the demolition was carried out not in compliance with the law, but in disregard of it, and such conduct undermines both the authority of the judiciary and the legitimacy of public administration.” (Para 20)

In a rare move signalling judicial intolerance for contemptuous state action, the High Court ordered:

• ₹10,00,000 in compensation, with ₹2,00,000 to be recovered from the Tahasildar;
• Departmental proceedings to be initiated against him;
• A copy of the judgment to be placed before the Chief Secretary and Revenue Secretary;
• Immediate framing and dissemination of detailed guidelines to all revenue and municipal officers, incorporating the directives of the Supreme Court in In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures, W.P.(C) No. 295 of 2022.

The Court further cited Delhi Airtech Services v. State of U.P. (2011) to underscore the doctrine of public accountability:

“Public officers are answerable for both their inaction and irresponsible actions… Greater the power to decide, higher is the responsibility to be just and fair.” (Para 24)

In a particularly important passage, it warned that arbitrary State action destroys the public’s faith in democratic institutions. This, the Court declared, was one such case—not just of wrongful demolition but of civic injury and institutional failure:

“What this judgment makes clear is that public power carries with it a continuing duty of care. The law is not self-executing. It depends on officers who are expected to act with fairness, honesty and within the limits of their legal authority. The doctrine of public trust is not a decorative ideal. It is a binding obligation that requires those in office to treat their role as a public responsibility. When decisions are taken in haste, or authority is used without proper justification, the consequences are not merely administrative. They touch the core of democratic governance. The rule of law is sustained not only by enforcement but by trust. That trust is built slowly and can be lost quickly. When it breaks, the harm is not always visible, but it runs deep. It affects not just the immediate parties but the public’s confidence in institutions. This Court has a duty to uphold both the legal framework and the public belief that the law is a shield, not a weapon.” (Para 24)

He stressed that the use of force before judicial finality undermines not just legal rights, but public trust in the constitutional order.

Conclusion: Law must prevail over expediency

Through this judgment that will likely reverberate through cases of arbitrary demolitions across India, the Orissa High Court reminded the executive that constitutional governance is not a choice—it is an obligation.

In allowing the writ petition and disposing of the contempt petition, the High Court has made a critical intervention in defence of constitutional order, judicial supremacy, and citizen dignity.

“What is at stake here is not the legality of one demolition, but the integrity of a constitutional culture. When executive action arrogates to itself the role of judge, jury, and executioner, the harm that follows is not merely institutional, it is civic. In a democratic society governed by the rule of law, process is not an inconvenience to be bypassed when found burdensome. It is the very architecture that lends legitimacy to State action. The moment that process becomes expendable, so does the public’s faith in the neutrality of governance. This Court is duty-bound to restore that balance, for what is lost here is not only a building, but also the belief that law is a shield against arbitrariness.” (Para 17)

By grounding its decision not only in statutory and procedural norms but in the civic ethos of constitutionalism, the Court made clear that the real damage caused by “bulldozer justice” is not to buildings alone—but to public trust in the rule of law.

The complete judgment may be read below.

Related:

Encroachment or erasure? India’s demolition wave and the law

Public officials must face accountability for unlawful demolition actions, rule of law to be upheld: Supreme Court

Bulldozer Justice: SC orders Rs 25 Lakhs interim Compensation for illegal demolition by UP Govt in 2019

Bulldozer Justice: How Unlawful Demolitions are Targeting India’s Marginalised Communities

2022: A year when Bulldozer became a ‘lawful’ means of punishment

The post “Bulldozer Justice” rebuked: Orissa High Court orders 10 lakh compensation for illegal demolition of community centre appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On June 24, a bench comprising Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Vinod Chandran issued notice in Jaynab Bibi’s special leave petition challenging the High Court’s decision dated February 17, 2025. The Court directed that no coercive action, including deportation, shall be taken against the petitioner in the meantime.

“Issue notice returnable on 25.08.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to serve the standing counsel for respondent(s). In the meanwhile, petitioner shall not be deported and no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner.”

Advocates Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi and Akanksha Rai had appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

Challenging Tribunal’s “mechanical” declaration

Jaynab Bibi, who asserts Indian citizenship by birth, contends that she was born and raised in Muamari village, Nagaon district, Assam. As per a report in LiveLaw, in her petition, Jaynab Bibi detailed a comprehensive set of documentary evidence to establish her familial lineage — including the 1951 National Register of Citizens (NRC), electoral rolls from 1965, 1970, 1989, 1997, 2016, and 2018, jamabandi records, and certificates issued by local Gaon Panchayat authorities and the Gaonburah (village headman).

However, the Foreigners Tribunal, in a brief two-page order dated May 20, 2017, had dismissed this evidence. It cited inconsistencies in names and depositions, particularly pointing to the fact that neither the petitioner nor her mother mentioned the petitioner’s uncle during their testimonies. The Tribunal also discredited the Gaonburah certificate that attempted to explain the variation between the names “Kasom Ali” and “Abul Kasem” as referring to the same individual, the petitioner’s father.

Gauhati HC upheld Tribunal’s finding

Despite the extensive documentation provided, the Gauhati High Court found the petitioner had failed to discharge the burden of proof under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act. According to the petition, the High Court ruled that her mother’s oral testimony alone was insufficient to establish her paternal linkage. It also faulted the petitioner for not clarifying the name discrepancy between “Kasom Ali” and “Abul Kasem” in her written pleadings or testimony, noting that the Gaonburah’s explanation, in the absence of corroborating evidence, was inadequate.

The High Court further held that certain certificates produced by the petitioner bore the State Emblem and were thus inadmissible, and that key foundational facts were missing from her written statement. Citing various precedents, it emphasised the importance of laying out all essential facts in the written statement before the Tribunal.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed her writ petition and revoked the interim protection she had been enjoying, allowing the consequences of the Tribunal’s declaration to take effect.

Directions of the Supreme Court

In its order dated June 24, 2025, the Supreme Court directed that no coercive steps, including deportation, be taken against Jaynab Bibi until further orders. While issuing notice returnable on August 25, 2025, the bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Vinod Chandran permitted the petitioner’s counsel to serve a copy of the petition to the standing counsel for the respondents. The Court’s interim direction effectively stays the operation of the Foreigners Tribunal’s declaration and the Gauhati High Court’s judgment, offering immediate protection to the petitioner amid growing national concerns about arbitrary and opaque deportation practices in Assam.

Supreme Court’s earlier concern over arbitrary process

In her plea, as per the LiveLaw report, Jaynab Bibi has relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s observations in Mohd. Rahim Ali v. State of Assam (order dated July 11, 2024), where the Court raised strong concerns about the opaque and often arbitrary processes by which people in Assam are suspected and declared foreigners. The Court in that case had held that mere suspicion cannot justify initiation of proceedings under the Foreigners Act, and that reference-making authorities must disclose the basis for suspecting a person’s nationality. Detailed analysis of the said judgment may be read here.

The complete order may be read below.

Context: Growing national attention to Assam’s deportation practices

The case comes against a backdrop of heightened scrutiny over Assam’s approach to suspected foreigners, particularly Bengali-speaking Muslims. On February 4, 2025, the Supreme Court pulled up the Assam government for the prolonged detention of declared foreigners and directed prompt initiation of deportation proceedings.

Subsequently, the state informed the apex court in March that 13 out of 63 Bangladeshi nationals lodged at the Matia transit camp had been deported.

Since the month of May, concerns grew over reports of Assam authorities “pushing back” individuals, allegedly including Indian citizens, across the Bangladesh border without due legal process or individual determinations of nationality. In response, the All BTC Minority Students Union (ABMSU) approached the Supreme Court, filing a writ petition challenging the constitutionality of this policy. The petition claimed that the deportations were being carried out without Tribunal declarations or nationality verification.

However, on June 2, 2025, the Supreme Court declined to entertain the ABMSU’s plea and asked the petitioner to approach the Gauhati High Court instead. Around the same time, the Court admitted a separate plea filed by a son on behalf of his mother, who was allegedly detained without due process.

Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma has publicly defended the state’s “push back” operations, stating in the assembly that more than 330 individuals had been expelled under the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 — a colonial-era law which allows district commissioners to issue deportation orders without the need for a judicial proceeding.

CJP’s legal battle against post-bail detentions and deportations

Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) has been spearheading a series of petitions before the Gauhati High Court, challenging the sudden re-detention and suspected deportation of individuals who were earlier granted bail during the COVID-19 pandemic under court-issued guidelines. These individuals, all declared foreigners by Tribunals, were released under relaxed bail conditions to decongest detention centres and have, for years, complied with strict weekly or fortnightly police reporting requirements.

Despite this, CJP has documented several cases where persons were abruptly picked up by Assam police in late May and early June 2025. For instance, in the case of Mozida Begum v. Union of India, the High Court had been hearing a plea concerning the re-detention of Hachinur (also known as Hasinur), who was detained from Goalpara despite complying with all bail conditions since 2020. Hasinur was granted bail by the High Court after the Bench 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.” (Details of the case may be read here.)

In another matter for which CJP is providing legal aid, namely Bakkar Ali v. Union of India, the petitioner alleges that his father, Samsul Ali, who was also out on bail, was reportedly handed over to the Border Security Force (BSF) and later found unconscious near the international border in Bijni, raising fears of an attempted illegal deportation. (Details of the case may be read here.)

CJP’s petitions argue that these actions violate Article 21 of the Constitution and constitute a breach of bail orders that were never revoked by any competent court. In court, CJP has highlighted that no fresh show cause notices, tribunal orders, or deportation proceedings were initiated before taking such coercive action. In multiple hearings, the High Court has taken serious note of the allegations, and in some cases, such as that of Majibur Rehman, represented by his wife Reijya Khatun, and Abdul Sheikh, represented by his son Sanidul Sheikh, the bench has sought detailed responses from the Assam government. (Details of the said cases may be read here, here and here.)

These proceedings also come amid wider concerns about Assam’s alleged “push back” policy, which involves the informal expulsion of suspected foreigners, sometimes without even the minimal safeguards of a tribunal declaration or nationality verification. CJP’s filings urge the High Court to reaffirm that bail granted during COVID-19, particularly in the absence of a deportation treaty with Bangladesh, cannot be overridden through unilateral executive action, and that such deportations, if carried out, must comply with both domestic and international legal obligations.

Related:

After incorrect detention claim, Gauhati HC was informed that Doyjan Bibi was handed over to BSF

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

“Bail once granted can’t be ignored”: Gauhati HC seeks legal basis for re-detentions of COVID-era released detainees

The post SC stays deportation of woman declared foreigner, issues notice on challenge to Gauhati HC Order appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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.

The report suggests that multidimensional poverty in Gujarat declined by around 7% over a period of five years, pointing out that in tribal-dominated districts, where poverty levels were particularly high, there has been a clear improvement: in Dahod from 54.93% to 38.27%, in Dangs from 57.33% to 26.61%, in Narmada from 37.11% to 22.62%, and in Panchmahal from 41.52% to 18.11%.

Basing its estimates on the National Family Health Surveys of 2015–16 and 2019–21, the report claims the “most rapid reduction” in multidimensional poverty occurred in districts located in four states: Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, and Rajasthan.

While not directly disputing what the Government of India report highlights regarding Gujarat, a new survey carried out by a civil rights group in two tribal districts — Dahod and Panchmahal — and two non-tribal districts — Bhavnagar and Morbi — suggests that things aren’t as rosy as they are made out to be.

A follow-up to a similar survey carried out in 2004, the new survey — conducted in 2025 by Anandi (Area Networking and Development Initiatives or ASAA) — reveals that, even after two decades, total food security continues to elude nearly 80% of the population in the surveyed areas. To quote Sejal A. Dand, a senior activist directly involved in both the 2004 and 2025 surveys, two decades ago, 10% of people were found to be “food secure,” and this percentage has gone up by just 2% over the years — to 12%.

Releasing details of the 2025 survey, which was conducted with the help of senior academic Prof. Dipa Sinha, currently with Azim Premji University, another Anandi activist, Neeta Hardikar, told the Ahmedabad media that there is certainly a change: unlike in 2004, there is “no full day hunger” as found then, “but our survey suggests that a large number of households often don’t have access to food, especially in the tribal areas.”

The survey results confirm this: in 2004, it was found that in the sample households of the tribal area of Panchmahal, a staggering 73.66% were food insecure for more than six months in a year. In contrast, the 2025 survey shows that 7.06% “live in hunger,” while a whopping 86.38% have “incomplete meal,” and only 6.56% have a “full meal.” Conditions are worse in Dahod district: here, 24.61% live in hunger, 58.78% have “incomplete meal,” and only 16.61% have a “full meal.”

The 2025 results indicate that the situation is not much better in the non-tribal areas of the Saurashtra region of Gujarat where the survey was also conducted. In Malia (Morbi district), 9.10% “lived in hunger,” 75.51% had “incomplete meal,” while only 15.38% had a “full meal.” Similarly, in Shihor and Umrala of Bhavnagar district, 15.98% “lived in hunger”, 54.84% had “incomplete meal,” and just 14.13% had a “full meal.”

The 2025 survey was undertaken specifically to assess how effectively the National Food Security Act, 2013 — which aims to provide subsidized food grains to approximately two-thirds of the country’s 1.4 billion people — has been implemented since it became operational in Gujarat about a decade ago. A total of 1,261 households were included in the survey, mostly belonging to marginalised communities, with a deliberate effort to include those facing social vulnerabilities such as single women, the disabled, and the elderly.

The post Two decades on, hunger still haunts Gujarat: Survey exposes stark gap behind poverty claims appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The National Health Rights Alliance, All India Feminist Alliance (ALIFA) and National Alliance for Justice, Accountability and Rights (NAJAR), pan-Indian initiatives of the National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM) made a collective effort to mobilize solidarity for the serious public health situation in the strife-torn state and drew the attention of Hon’ble Droupadi Murmu, as the state is currently under President’s rule. The detailed letter signed by several prominent activists from across India seeks immediate intervention of the President to ensure effective public health infrastructure, personnel, services with safety and appropriate budgetary allocation in the valley, hills and relief camps across Manipur. The key demands are below. 

Acknowledging the fact that Manipur has a longer history of sporadic violence, the letter says that the conflict since 2023 has critically undermined its framework of essential services, in particular, the education and healthcare system. Damaged hospitals and clinics have halted necessary health services and drained supplies. Threats to health workers’ safety have created severe staffing shortages in key areas. The violence has displaced thousands, forcing them into overcrowded ‘relief’ camps with poor sanitation and limited medical care, heightening the risk of disease outbreaks. Already fragile, the healthcare system is now overwhelmed, exposing systemic failures in crisis response and infrastructure resilience. Women, children, students, elders have disproportionately faced the impacts of the violence.

 The signatories have highlighted that ensuring universal health rights is essential in order to achieve a fair, just and lasting peace in the battered region. In the current situation, essential health services remain severely disrupted in many parts of Manipur, both due to the ongoing crisis and due to the skewed distribution of health infrastructure in the state. While most of the services are concentrated in Imphal, the rest of the districts suffer from lack of basic infrastructure like hospitals, staff and services in the existing hospitals. 

Some of the signatories to the petition include well-known health rights activists like Dr. Vandana Prasad, Dr. Veena Shatrugna, Dr. Mira Shiva, Dr. Sylvia Karpagam, Dr. Ritu Priya, Dr. Suhas Kolhekar, Dr. Mohan Rao, Dr. Narendra Gupta, Dr. Swathi SB, Dr. Randall Sequeira, Dr Fuad Halim, Dr. Ekbal, Akhila Vasan, Indraneel etc. Some of the lawyers who endorsed the petition include: Adv Albertina, Adv Grijesh, Adv Vanaja, Adv Rema, Adv Shubham, Adv Afsar Jahan, Adv Mrinalini, Adv Shakeel, Adv Taniya, Adv Shalu Nigam, Adv Shadab, Adv Mini Mathew, Adv Seilenmang Haokip, Adv Joicy Milun Zou, Adv Sukumaran etc.

Feminist and social activists who signed the petition include Kalyani Menon Sen, Hechin Haokip, Suneetha Achyutha, Nalini Nayak, John Dayal, Ammu Abraham, Anand Mathew, Manshi Asher, Nisha Biswas, Dr. Bittu, Prof. Indranee Dutta, Koninika Ray, Dr. Sagari Ramdas, Anita Cheria, SR Darapuri, Rajesh Ramakrishnan, Soumya Dutta, Usmangani Sherasiya, Sujata Gothoskar, J Devika, Narbinder, Prasad Chacko, Anuradha Banerji, Meera Sanghamitra and many others.

The signatories have placed the following 10 demands before the President that require both immediate attention as well as systemic action:

1. A Special Task Force headed by an official with powers equivalent to a cabinet secretary must be immediately constituted, with special funds, to investigate the public health situation at hand in Manipur, within a fixed timeline of 2 months. Based on the recommendations of the Task Force, the government should plan and implement the necessary measures for strengthening public health across Manipur. 
2. Convene a committee of unbiased public health experts from the region, to discuss how the aforesaid plans can be carried out efficiently, considering the social, political and cultural histories and complexities of the region. 
3. Urgent filling up of vacant posts and recruitment of nurses, doctors and other medical staff in all the public health centres and hospitals. 
4. Centre must allocate additional funds, even though Manipur spends somewhat more than some other states on health care. Given how frequently the state has undergone violent conflicts, extra funds and adequate budgetary allocations are crucial. 
5. There must be effective inter-sectoral coordination between the home, disaster management, health, food and civil supplies, women and child welfare and social welfare departments to make sure that the rights and entitlements of the most vulnerable citizens and social groups, including tribal, indigenous communities, elders, women, children, persons with disabilities, workers, students, religious minorities, transgender, queer persons etc. is taken care of. 
6. Ensure advance preparedness for the onset of monsoon and disease outbreak both in the villages and relief camps. 
7. Ensure that there is no discrimination in health services on the basis of gender, religion and ethnicity.
8. Setting up effective and decentralized health infrastructure in as many districts of Manipur as possible, within a fixed time frame. Most immediately, setting up of functional community health centres in Lamka, especially in Tuibuang and Sangaikot areas.
9. Strengthen the public health infrastructure, stop privatization of district hospitals, regulate corporate and private healthcare, ensure availability of quality medicines free of cost and include mental health services at all primary healthcare centres along with universal health care in the public health system. 
10. Eventually, the state government must bring a comprehensive law for the Right to Health of all citizens, to address all health-related concerns.  

The letter calls for proactive action by the Centre and state government and a strong political will to implement the aforesaid demands. The signatories also urged the President to visit Manipur at the earliest, interact with and understand the situation of all communities first hand, in the hills, valley and relief camps and intervene effectively to ensure the right to health, right to life, right to safety and dignity of the people of Manipur.

Related:

Manipur tensions escalate over free movement policy: Kuki-Zo resistance and government crackdown

Manipur Chief Minister N Biren Singh resigns amid political turmoil and ethnic unrest

Supreme Court seeks forensic report on audio recordings alleging Manipur CM’s role in ethnic violence

Divided & strife-torn Manipur: intensified violence, abdication by state & union governments, demands of accountability from BJP MLAs

Fresh violence grips Manipur: Clashes in Jiribam and widespread protests after rape and brutal killings

The post Manipur Violence: Two years down, health rights activists demand restoration and spread of essential services all over state appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Both cases have exposed the terrifying impunity with which caste- and tribe-based violence continues to unfold, and the utter failure of systems meant to protect vulnerable children. As outrage grows, questions are being raised not just about the perpetrators, but about a state structure that remains indifferent to the safety and dignity of its most marginalised.

10-year-old Adivasi girl stripped and burned

Even as outrage over the gang-rape case mounted, another incident emerged from a different part of Andhra Pradesh—this time allegedly involving a 10-year-old tribal girl from the Scheduled Tribe (ST) community. The child was falsely accused of stealing a mobile phone. In a disturbing act of mob violence and humiliation, she was allegedly stripped of her clothes and her body was burned with a hot stick, inflicting grievous injuries.

As per a report of NDTV, the child, Chenchamma, lived with her aunt, Sannari Manikyam, at the Scheduled Tribe Colony in Kuditepalem Kakarla Dibba of the district. Suspecting that Chenchamma stole a mobile phone from a nearby house, the neighbours allegedly burned her body with a hot iron rod and beat her. 

As per the report of the Indian Express, the police in Indukurupet Mandal in Nellore detained at least two people in connection with the alleged torture of the girl. Other neighbours heard the girl’s cries when she was allegedly being burnt with a hot iron rod on her cheeks. They rescued her and called the police before shifting her to a government hospital, where she was given treatment and discharged.

“The girl denied going to the neighbour’s house, let alone stealing a phone, and claimed innocence. We have registered an FIR and detained two people for questioning,’’ an officer from the Indukurupet police station said, as per the IE report.

Two years of silence: Minor Dalit girl raped for two years by 17 individuals

In a case that has exposed the horrific intersections of caste, gender, and institutional apathy, a 15-year-old Dalit girl from Sri Satya Sai district in Andhra Pradesh has been found eight months pregnant after allegedly being gang-raped by 17 individuals over a period of nearly two years. The abuse, police say, began when the girl was just 13 years old and continued in silence—unreported and unchecked—until earlier this month, when her mother finally approached the authorities.

Thirteen of the 17 accused have been arrested so far, including three minors. The main accused, who is believed to have initiated the cycle of abuse, remains absconding. All the adult accused have been remanded to judicial custody, while the minors are under the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Justice Board. A case has been registered under several stringent provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and the Information Technology Act, 2000.

A cycle of exploitation and silence: According to the police investigation, the abuse began when the girl was studying in Class 8. After her father’s death three years ago, she and her mother—belonging to the Madiga (Scheduled Caste) community—had moved to a small village near the Karnataka border. The family, impoverished and socially marginalised, was struggling to survive.

As per the report of India Today, one day, after school, the girl and her SC classmate were reportedly photographed by a member of the local Boya community. The Boyas are a dominant and politically influential caste in the region. The accused used these images to blackmail the girl, threatening to release them on social media. Two men then sexually assaulted her. The incident was filmed and circulated among their acquaintances, leading to a pattern of repeated rape by at least 14 men over two years.

The remand report and survivor’s statement reveal that the blackmail, coercion, and threats never stopped. As per a report of the Indian Express, “It was her age, her caste, and her social vulnerability that made her easy prey,” said District Superintendent of Police V Ratna. “The exploitation was systematic and prolonged. This was not just one incident, it was organised abuse that continued for two years.”

The men who allegedly assaulted her are aged between 18 and 51. Most of them belong to the Boya community, while three others, including her classmate, are from the SC community and are being investigated for failing to report the abuse.

Arrests and charges: On June 9, police arrested six individuals:

• Achampalli Vardhan (21)
• Talari Murali (25)
• Badagorla Nandavardhan Raj alias Nanda (23)
• Arencheru Nagaraju alias Haryana Cheruvu Nagaraju (51)
• Boya Sanjeev (40)
• Budida Rajanna (49)

Seven others were arrested the following day, including minors. The main accused remains at large. Police say several of those arrested already have criminal records. A special investigation team has been formed under Dharmavaram subdivision to trace the absconding accused, as per The Week.

The case has been registered under sections related to rape, gang-rape, criminal intimidation, and the use of technology for exploitation. The police have also sought permission for a DNA test on the unborn child, which will be critical for the prosecution.

Systemic failure at every level

This case has laid bare deep institutional failings. Despite being a government school student, the girl dropped out of Class 10—a critical academic year—without her teachers raising any concern or notifying authorities. “It is unimaginable that a child disappears from school and nobody asks why,” said SP Ratna, as reported by IE. “Even after she became visibly pregnant, nobody in the village reported it.”

Local welfare structures, too, failed to intervene. The Grama Mahila Samrakshana Karyadarsi, a village-level cadre of women volunteers who serve as ‘Mahila Police’, did not conduct any welfare checks. Neither did Accredited Social Health Activist (ASHA) workers, who are supposed to monitor maternal and child health at the community level.

“We are looking into these failures. These systems are in place specifically to protect vulnerable children. Their inaction has consequences,” Ratna added, according to the IE report.

Caste, power and pressure to stay silent: According to local officials, who spoke with the IE, the caste dynamics in the village were crucial in enabling the silence. The survivor’s family belongs to the Madiga community, a Scheduled Caste group with minimal presence in the village. Of the 17 accused, 14 belong to the powerful Boya community. Police say that when the case began to unravel, Boya community leaders attempted to suppress it by pressuring the girl to marry her SC classmate—one of the minors now under investigation—to give the appearance of consent and close the matter.

“Despite the survivor being visibly pregnant, no one reported the crime. The silence of the village was not accidental—it was imposed through caste hierarchies and social fear,” said a senior official involved in the investigation as per the IE report.

Ongoing care and state protection: As per the report of Deccan Herald, the survivor is now under medical care at the Government General Hospital in Anantapur. Doctors have confirmed that abortion is not an option due to the advanced stage of pregnancy. The girl, who is anaemic and struggling with depression, is receiving counselling, nutritional support, and round-the-clock care.

She will not be sent back to the village after delivery. Instead, both mother and newborn will be shifted to a state-run women’s shelter. “We fear coercion. Even from jail, these men could pressure the family to withdraw the case,” the SP said, as per IE report.

The state has also moved to obtain court permission for DNA testing of the unborn child. Police say this will strengthen the case and help establish individual responsibility among the accused.

Political fallout: The case has triggered political controversy and public outrage. Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu expressed shock over the incident, calling for swift investigation, speedy trial, and strict punishment for the accused. “Strong evidence must be collected to ensure that the guilty do not escape justice,” he said in a statement.

Opposition leader and former Chief Minister Jagan Mohan Reddy of the YSR Congress Party, however, accused the TDP government of shielding perpetrators with political links. In a post on X (formerly Twitter), Reddy wrote: “As an indicator of Govt’s insensitivity, the state has witnessed 188 rapes and 15 rape-murders in one year. Even recently, an Intermediate tribal student from Anantapur was found murdered and dumped in the woods after a brutal attack.”

He further questioned the TDP’s commitment to women’s safety, calling the situation “disgraceful” and “preposterous”.

Systemic negligence and caste impunity

The intersection of caste, poverty, and gender has made SC/ST girls disproportionately vulnerable to abuse. Both these cases reveal not just individual acts of brutality, but a pattern of systemic neglect, caste dominance, and institutional collapse. In the Dalit girl’s case, school teachers failed to follow up on her sudden dropout in Class 10. ASHA workers, Mahila Police volunteers, and child protection officials did not intervene despite visible red flags. In the tribal child’s case, the violence remained hidden until the neighbours raised an alarm.

The lack of early intervention, social stigma, and fear of dominant caste groups contributed to the silence in both cases. In the gang-rape case, Boya community leaders reportedly tried to pressure the survivor into marriage to close the matter. In the tribal girl’s case, no community elder stepped in to stop the torture or report the crime.

Related:

Rajasthan’s rape crisis: a string of horrific crimes challenges the state’s record on women’s safety

Encroachment or erasure? India’s demolition wave and the law

Mapping Hate: The Pahalgam Attack and its ripple effects

A Pattern of Impunity? This report details horrific crimes against Dalits in UP, Rajasthan, MP and beyond

The post Dalit and Tribal girls brutalised in Andhra Pradesh: Twin crimes lay bare caste violence and systemic collapse 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.