CJP Team | SabrangIndia https://sabrangindia.in/content-author/cjp-team-17750/ News Related to Human Rights Mon, 30 Jun 2025 13:43:52 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.2.2 https://sabrangindia.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Favicon_0.png CJP Team | SabrangIndia https://sabrangindia.in/content-author/cjp-team-17750/ 32 32 Azad Maidan erupts in protest as Maharashtra set to enact sweeping law aimed at silencing dissent https://sabrangindia.in/azad-maidan-erupts-in-protest-as-maharashtra-set-to-enact-sweeping-law-aimed-at-silencing-dissent/ Mon, 30 Jun 2025 12:48:47 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=42515 Left fronts and opposition unite in massive mobilisation as controversial law heads for tabling and passage without any heed to objections raised

The post Azad Maidan erupts in protest as Maharashtra set to enact sweeping law aimed at silencing dissent appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>
Azad Maidan turned into a powerful site of resistance today, June 30, as thousands gathered under the banner of people’s movements, left parties, to oppose the Maharashtra Special Public Safety Bill, 2024. The protest was also supported by the opposition parties, that is the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA). With the bill expected to be tabled in the monsoon session of the Assembly, the protest marked one of the most unified public mobilisations in recent years against what is widely perceived as a legal weapon against dissent.

The mobilisation was, in large part, organised by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the Communist Party of India, with support from people’s organisations. Key MVA constituents—the Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray), Indian National Congress, and the Nationalist Congress Party (Sharad Pawar faction) turned out in support. The turnout reflected a broad political front, including working-class organisations, students, farmers’ unions, and civil liberties groups.

State Secretary of the CPI (M), Dr. Ajit Nawale, had issued an open call for participation across Maharashtra, urging district units to treat this as a “decisive stand against authoritarianism.” Protesters arrived from across the state—by bus, train, and private vehicles—responding to the call to defend democratic rights.

Opposition and civil society leaders stand together

Several prominent leaders stood in solidarity at the protest. Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Uddhav Thackeray, Supriya Sule of the NCP (SP), CPI state secretary and labour organiser Subhash Lande and senior social activist Ulka Mahajan joined demonstrators at Azad Maidan, expressing serious concern about the implications of the bill.

These leaders and activists highlighted how the Bill, under the pretext of “public safety,” could be used to suppress dissent, criminalise activism, and target opposition voices. They noted that terms such as “radical Left-wing organisations” and “urban Naxal” remain undefined and dangerously broad in the amended draft, leaving space for arbitrary interpretation.

Other speakers also pointed out that the bill’s provisions—such as unchecked powers to evict communities (Section 9), seize properties (Section 10), and deny lower court remedies (Section 12)—mirror the most draconian aspects of laws like the UAPA and NSA.

From every corner of Maharashtra, a message of resistance

The crowd was a mix of students, youth, farmers, trade unionists, and senior citizens. Red flags and protest banners filled the grounds of Azad Maidan. Many held up pamphlets circulated by the organising groups, breaking down the bill’s most dangerous provisions and urging complete withdrawal—not mere amendments. Visuals from the ground show the scale and intensity of the crowd gathered at the ground. Protesters emphasised that the Joint Committee’s amendments are superficial and leave intact the state’s power of surveillance, to prosecute, and punish under vaguely defined offences (Detailed report on earlier protests may be viewed here)

Backdrop: The Bill’s imminent passage in the Monsoon Session

The Maharashtra government had invited public comments and criticisms on the Bill, to be submitted by April 1. Among thousands of others, Citizens for Justice and Peace had also submitted an elaborate critique. This may be read here. The protest coincides with the start of the Maharashtra Assembly’s monsoon session, where the revised Maharashtra Special Public Safety Bill is likely to be introduced. Although the Joint Committee proposed some changes—such as limiting the bill’s applicability to organisations and raising the investigation officer’s rank—rights groups and opposition parties have argued that these are cosmetic changes that do not alter the repressive core of the legislation.

The continued use of ideological terms, the lack of statutory definitions, and the shielding of officials from prosecution (Sections 14 and 15) have all been flagged as severe threats to constitutional safeguards. The committee’s refusal to hold public hearings with those who submitted objections has also drawn sharp criticism.

The joint coalition of activists, people’s organisations and the left front have strongly critiqued the published ‘report of the Joint Committee.’ Citizens for Justice and Peace presents its critique here:

Note on Joint Committee Report on the Maharashtra Special Public Safety Bill, 2024: Superficial amendments, structural repression intact

June 30, 2025

What has been termed as the Joint Committee’s report on the Maharashtra Special Public Safety Bill, 2024 (Assembly Bill No. 33), appears to be a clear whitewash of the actual discussions that took place with members of the Opposition over five sittings since the Committee was formed. The obvious motive of this government is not even to record or allow the dissent and voices that were raised by members of the Opposition (Maha Vikas Aghadi) on key aspects of the Bill which includes definitions, seizure and arrest powers, superintendence of investigations, constitution of the Advisory Board and also the denial of one tier of justice, the district courts for first appeals.

Fundamentally, the very insistence of this regime and administration for the passage of a fourth law to ostensibly counter terrorism (or Naxal-caused terror) when Maharashtra already has the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act (MCOCA) since 1999, the Unlawful Practices (Prevention) Act since its inception –first 1967 and post 2004 with multiple amendments since it’s a central law—and finally the 2023 Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita (BNS) Sections 113-119 that have incorporated all draconian sections of the UAPA in everyday criminal law. [The justification, therefore that ‘other states have such a law’ is nullified by the facts: these states had enacted these legislations before the UAPA in amended form applied to the entire country and also the BNS, 2023.]

What can be the reasons (or the motive) to bring in a fourth such legislation when the above stringent provisions are already in force? Except to use it as a sword over the heads of activists (political and social), writers, dissenters, political opponents—in fact any person/s who are “inconvenient” to the regime or administration? A fourth law with draconian provisions will make bail impossible!

The press note by the government on behalf of the Committee clearly reveal that the discussions and deliberations notwithstanding, the attitude of the state government has not changed and the final Bill (in few form) when it will be tabled, will continue to be riddled with core constitutional defects.

Changes outlined in the Press Note June 26, 2025 on “Committee’s Findings:

The changes made are cosmetic, rhetorical, and deliberately evasive. The bill retains its unconstitutional structure, vague terminology, and legal architecture that allows for the criminalisation of dissent, targeting of political opponents, and violation of fundamental rights.

Despite widespread opposition, extensive written objections, and participation from multiple political formations and civil society organisations, the Committee has made only three formal amendments:

  1. Rewording the objective clause to target “radical Left-wing organisations or similar organisations”;
  2. Recasting the composition of the Advisory Board;
  3. Raising the investigating officer’s rank from Sub-Inspector to Deputy Superintendent of Police.

None of these changes address the key concerns raised regarding the need for multiplicity of counter terror laws, wide definitions, unchecked executive power, procedural violations, denial of legal remedy, and institutional impunity. This report, therefore, must be categorically rejected. The bill remains a direct attack on India’s constitutional order.

I. Title and Objective: Politically weaponised language, vague in law

Original title:

“A Bill to provide for the more effective prevention of certain unlawful acts of persons and organizations…”

Amended title:

“A Bill to effectively prevent certain illegal activities of radical Left-wing organisations or similar organisations…”

Analysis:

  • The rewording does not narrow the scope. It simply replaces generic terms with ideologically charged and undefined phrases.
  • The inclusion of “radical Left-wing organisations or similar organisations” is deliberately vague. No legal definition of “radical” is provided. The phrase “similar organisations” creates infinite elasticity, allowing any ideological formation—even peaceful or democratic—to be labelled a threat. [Note: Radical Right-Wing Organisations have escaped all consideration or mention!]
  • The justification for this framing lies in the invocation of “urban Naxalism”—a politically loaded term with no statutory definition. Its continued use codifies the state’s ideological hostility to dissent.

Conclusion: This amendment intensifies the bill’s politically motivated purpose. Here is not a law to main peace or law and order, but a tool to terrorise and silent dissent. It reinforces a narrative in which civil society actors, trade unions, student groups, and political opponents can be branded as subversive. The bill’s objective remains a tool of ideological surveillance, not a legitimate legal safeguard. 

II. Advisory Board: Erosion of judicial independence

Original Clause 5(2):

The Advisory Board was to comprise individuals who “are or have been judges of a High Court or are eligible for appointment.”

Amended Clause:

Now allows appointment of:

  • Retired High Court Judges
  • Retired District Judges
  • Government Advocates of the High Court

Analysis:

  • This amendment is a deliberate dilution of judicial independence.
  • Government advocates are functionaries of the executive. Their inclusion on a body meant to evaluate the legality of state actions obliterates the principle of neutral oversight.
  • Retired district judges do not carry the constitutional status or independence of High Court judges.
  • The executive retains unchecked power to choose pliant members, turning the Advisory Board into a formal rubber stamp.

Conclusion: The Advisory Board, which was supposed to serve as a procedural check, has now been structurally compromised. The amendment institutionalises executive capture of oversight mechanisms. 

III. Investigating Officer Rank: Cosmetic bureaucratic adjustment

Original Clause 15(1):

Police officers not below the rank of Sub-Inspector to investigate offences under the Act.

Amended Clause:

Investigation restricted to officers of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or above.

Analysis:

  • Raising the rank of the investigating officer is an administrative change. It does not alter the grounds, process, or criteria of investigation.
  • The real issue is not who conducts the investigation, but what can be investigated.
  • The law allows vague, subjective interpretation of terms like “association,” “support,” or “membership” of radical groups.
  • The UAPA and NSA demonstrate that higher rank officers have been equally complicit in abuse and arbitrary arrests.

Conclusion: This amendment is a public relations manoeuvre, not a safeguard. It creates the illusion of due process while leaving arbitrary detention and criminalisation of dissent fully operational.

IV. Structural defects the Committee has deliberately ignored

The most dangerous provisions of the original bill, identified in detailed submissions by multiple groups including CJP, remain untouched. The committee has not even acknowledged, let alone amended, the following especially:

Section 2(f): Overbroad definition of “Unlawful Activity”

  • No revision made.
  • The section allows any form of protest, critique, or public mobilisation to be interpreted as a threat to public order.

Section 9: Arbitrary eviction and property seizure

  • District Magistrates and Police Commissioners retain absolute powers to seize properties and evict residents from notified areas.
  • Only a vague promise of “reasonable time” to vacate is offered to women and children.

Section 10(1): Confiscation of moveable property

  • No legal safeguards introduced.
  • Entire homes, records, belongings, and finances can be seized on executive suspicion.

Section 12: Bar on district-level legal remedy

  • Individuals can only approach the High Court or Supreme Court to challenge state action.
  • This provision deliberately denies access to justice for economically weaker citizens and violates the principle of accessible legal redress.

Sections 14 & 15: Blanket immunity to officials

  • Officers and magistrates acting under the law are granted total immunity, even when they violate constitutional rights.
  • No mechanisms for accountability or independent review have been introduced.

Conclusion: The bill continues to function as an extra-constitutional regime. It merges preventive detention, ideological policing, and property seizure into a legal framework shielded from public accountability and judicial review.

V. Committee’s Ideological Closing Statement: Criminalising youth and dissent

The report ends with a “recommendation” urging the state to act against the “growing attraction” of youth to Naxalism and to implement policies to “discourage” them and “bring them into the mainstream.”

Analysis:

  • This ideological framing reinforces that the law is designed to monitor, control, and neutralise student movements, political education, and grassroots activism.
  • The state’s role is redefined not as a guarantor of rights, but as a censor of ideas.

Conclusion: The bill is not preventive security legislation. It is a state doctrine against dissent, designed to criminalise political education, intellectual opposition, and mobilisation.

This report must be rejected in its entirety!

The Joint Committee has failed in its legislative duty to protect constitutional values. It has whitewashed a draconian bill under the guise of minor technical amendments. What remains is a legal instrument of political repression.

The bill:

  • Treats opposition as extremism
  • Treats mobilisation as subversion
  • Treats dissent as treason

This is a dangerous precedent. Not just that the Maharashtra government has reduced the functioning of a democratically set up Committee with Members of the Opposition in the State Assembly to tokenism but is proceeding –riding roughshod over critiques of such a law—with a statute that will have dangerous consequences. If enacted, it will be used to target civil society, demolish protest movements, paralyse unions, and intimidate the political opposition across Maharashtra.

Note prepared by Team Citizens for Justice and Peace

 

Related:

Maharashtra Unites: State-wide protests to take place against controversial MSPS Bill on April 22

Understanding the Maharashtra Special Public Security (MSPS) Bill, 2024 | Threat to Civil Liberties?

Maharashtra’s redrafted Public Security Bill narrows scope — but concerns about suppression of dissent persist

CJP sends objections against Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024, citing grave threats to civil liberties

Press Release: Experts warn, Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill a threat to civil liberties

 

The post Azad Maidan erupts in protest as Maharashtra set to enact sweeping law aimed at silencing dissent appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>
Dalit Justice Demanded: CJP exposes 30 brutal anti-Dalits atrocities, urges NCSC to confront nationwide caste violence under Article 338 https://sabrangindia.in/dalit-justice-demanded-cjp-exposes-30-brutal-anti-dalits-atrocities-urges-ncsc-to-confront-nationwide-caste-violence-under-article-338/ Mon, 30 Jun 2025 06:33:06 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=42467 Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) filed a scathing complaint with the NCSC, meticulously detailing 30 horrific anti-Dalit atrocities across nine states – Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, and Maharashtra – from April to June 2025, these range from sexual assaults and murders to denial of basic rights, directly violating the PoA Act and highlighting an urgent, systemic failure demanding immediate intervention and accountability for perpetrators

The post Dalit Justice Demanded: CJP exposes 30 brutal anti-Dalits atrocities, urges NCSC to confront nationwide caste violence under Article 338 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>
On June 24 (2025), the Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) filed a formal complaint with National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) urging a thorough investigation and inquiry by the commission regarding the 30 anti-Dalits happened across the states of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka and Maharashtra.

CJP approached the commission under Article 338(5)(a) and (b) of the Constitution, which mandates the National Commission for Scheduled Castes to investigate and monitor all matters relating to the safeguards provided for the Scheduled Castes under the Constitution or under any other law, and to inquire into specific complaints with respect to the deprivation of rights and safeguards of the Scheduled Castes.

The complaint meticulously lists of 30 numerous atrocities from April to June 2025, primarily from Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Bihar, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and Maharashtra. These incidents range from horrific sexual assaults, including rape and gang-rape of minor Dalit girls and women, to brutal murders, physical violence, and public humiliation. Instances include a deaf and mute Dalit girl being raped in Rampur, a 10-year-old boy brutally murdered in Etah, and a Dalit groom being beaten and forced off his horse in Agra.

Beyond physical violence, the complaint highlights social discrimination, such as Dalits being denied cremation rights, barred from temple entry, and subjected to casteist slurs. These incidents reveal a deeply ingrained prejudice that continues to inflict severe trauma and deny basic human rights. CJP’s filing with the NCSC is a crucial step towards seeking accountability for perpetrators and ensuring justice and protection for the marginalised Dalit community, emphasising the urgent need for stringent action and systemic change.

Widespread crimes against SCs violating the PoA Act and Civil Rights

CJP Stated in its complaint that, these incidents directly contravene the spirit and letter of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, and more critically, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST PoA Act), which specifically aims to prevent atrocities against Scheduled Castes and to provide for special courts for the trial of such offenses and for relief and rehabilitation of the victims. The recurring nature of these incidents, especially the widespread instances of sexual violence and physical attacks, highlights a severe lapse in the implementation and enforcement of these crucial legislations.

Summary of the Incidents Reported

Sr. No. State Districts Particulars Date
1. Uttar Pradesh Rampur Deaf and mute Dalit girl raped, private parts brutally injured April 15, 2025

 

12-year-old Dalit girl kidnapped from home, raped by neighbour April 21, 2025
Sultanpur Dalit girl gang-raped on way to school May 16, 2025
Moradabad 12-year-old Dalit girl gang raped, filmed by 5 schoolboys May 8, 2025
Bulandshahr 14-year-old Dalit girl raped for 7 months April 28, 2025
Mainpuri Dalit woman raped at gunpoint in front of 4-year-old son April 17, 2025
Kaushambhi 16-year-dalit minor girl gang raped April 24, 2025
Etah 10-year-old boy brutally murdered, eyes gouged out, head crushed May 14, 2025
Lakhimpur Kheri Minor Dalit girl brutally thrashed on moving bus for opposing molestation May 2, 2025
Agra Dalit groom beaten, forced off horse in Agra; wedding guests injured, groom walks to venue April 16, 2025
Meerut Dalit women were brutally beaten by male police officers; 5 cops removed from their posts May 11, 2025
Bhadohi Dalit couple brutally attacked in Bhadohi: abused, dragged by hair, clothes torn May 23, 2025
Saharanpur 19-year-old Dalit student brutally murdered May 25, 2025
Aligarh Dalit groom attacked over car reversing in wedding & robbed May 28, 2025
2. Madhya Pradesh Tikamgarh Dalit groom’s procession stoned in Tikamgarh: woman attacks groom on horse April 25, 2025
Sheopur Dalit man denied cremation in Sheopur; family protests with body on road April 28, 2025
Chhatarpur Dalit youth murdered over ration dispute, accused absconding June 9, 2025
3. Rajasthan Sikar Dalit youth in Rajasthan sexually assaulted, beaten, urinated on; accused used caste slurs April 8, 2025
Nagaur Dalit Youth Beaten for Drinking Water from Grocery Shop Pot in Nagaur June 1, 2025
Didwana Dalit woman sarpanch, husband attacked over MNREGA Work June 8, 2025
Jodhpur Dalit nurse dies by suicide after assault and alleged police indifference May 2, 2025
4. Bihar Bhagalpur Dalit woman dragged by hair during police raid, casteist slurs hurled May 18, 2025
5. Gujarat Patan Dalit man found dead, partially burnt and cross-dressed, in Patan; murder suspected May 27, 2025
Amreli Dalit man dies after brutal assault in Gujarat over alleged casteist “Beta” remark May 16, 2025
6. Himachal Pradesh Mandi Dalits are not allowed to enter the temples or touch the deity May 13, 2025
7. Andhra Pradesh Tirupati Dalit engineering student kidnapped, tortured, and forced to drink urine  May 16, 2025
Kadapa 3-year-old Dalit girl raped, murdered May 23, 2025
Sri Sathya Sai a-13-year-old Dalit minor raped by 13 Youths in Satya Sai District, pregnancy reveals horrifying ordeal June 5, 2025
8. Karnataka Tumakuru Dalit youth barred from temple entry May 10, 2025
9. Maharashtra Beed Dalit man brutally attacked for aiding teenager June 4, 2025

 

Targeted crimes against SCs, a pattern of abuse

Through complaint, CJP highlights that systemic, widespread incidents of caste-driven oppression that are prevalent countrywide, across states governed by different political dispensations pointing to a deep-rooted societal malaise that has not only acquired a frightening level of ‘normalised violence and oppression’ but also is ‘allowed because of structured levels of immunity’. While some measure of space and political representation has been ensured due to the affirmative action of reservations, even decades after independence, the Dalits have not achieved total emancipation. Even today, Dalits continue to be vulnerable to such attacks which are not just violent in nature but also emerge from trivial social stigma.

CJP also stated in its complaint that as per the NCRB report, there are a total of 70,818 cases of atrocities against SCs and 12,159 against STs that remained pending for investigation at the end of the year 2021. A total of 2,63,512 cases of SCs and 42,512 cases of STs were placed for trial in the courts. At the end of the year, more than 96 percent of the total cases were still pending for trial. Though the charge-sheeting percentage was more than 80%, but the conviction rate remained below 40%.

Legal issues and violations involved in anti-Dalits crimes

CJP mentioned in its complaint that the pervasive nature of these incidents highlights a profound and alarming issue: the persistent and egregious violation of the fundamental rights of Scheduled Castes. These crimes are not isolated, but rather represent a systemic failure to protect a vulnerable population, often underpinned by deeply entrenched caste-based discrimination.

Such acts directly violate various provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (PoA Act), specifically Sections 3(1) and 3(2). These sections criminalise intentional insults, intimidation with intent to humiliate, caste-name abuse in public view, and obstruction of access to common property resources or public places.

Furthermore, the willful neglect of duties by public servants, particularly police officers, is a direct violation of Section 4(1) of the PoA Act, and potentially Sections 198 and 120 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 for public servants disobeying the law or voluntarily causing hurt to extort confessions, as CJP added

Prayers of CJP for intervention

In light of these distressing facts, CJP urgently implores the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) to take immediate and decisive action. The primary prayers include mandatory registration and monitoring of FIRs, directing DGPs of affected states (Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Bihar, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and Maharashtra) to provide exhaustive reports on incident status, ensuring proper legal sections, and immediate registration of new FIRs where needed. CJP also seeks independent, impartial, and expeditious investigations with active NCSC monitoring, calling for Special Investigation Teams (SITs) and regular progress reports.

Crucially, it requests mandatory suspension and departmental proceedings against negligent public servants under the SC/ST (PoA) Act, emphasising accountability. Furthermore, CJP prays for the immediate and comprehensive provision of compensation, protection, and rehabilitation for victims and their families, ensuring medical, psychological, and legal aid.

Finally, CJP urges the NCSC to issue special, binding guidelines and advisories for prevention, including identifying atrocity-prone areas, mandating sensitisation training for police, establishing mechanisms for action against delinquent officials, and fostering public awareness and community engagement. The NCSC’s robust intervention is paramount to secure justice and deter future atrocities.

Related

CJP files complaint with NCSC, 11 anti-Dalit incidents highlighted since July 2023

CJP informs NCSC of Bihar police beating up minor Dalit boys for celebrating Holi; seeks action

CJP moves NCSC for protection for family of Dalit boy

The post Dalit Justice Demanded: CJP exposes 30 brutal anti-Dalits atrocities, urges NCSC to confront nationwide caste violence under Article 338 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>
Doyjan Bibi not in Holding Centre, but handed to BSF: State tells Gauhati HC, taking departure from earlier stand https://sabrangindia.in/doyjan-bibi-not-in-holding-centre-but-handed-to-bsf-state-tells-gauhati-hc-taking-departure-from-earlier-stand/ Thu, 26 Jun 2025 13:31:56 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=42473 State counsel admits earlier claim that she was at Kokrajhar Holding Centre was based on incorrect telephonic instruction; Court directs verification from BSF Panbari if she has not been deported

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.

]]>
What We Know So Far: June 26, 2025

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.

]]>
No breach, no recall, yet detained again: Gauhati HC seeks affidavit from State for re-detentions of COVID-era released detainees https://sabrangindia.in/no-breach-no-recall-yet-detained-again-gauhati-hc-seeks-affidavit-from-state-for-re-detentions-of-covid-era-released-detainees/ Thu, 26 Jun 2025 12:55:36 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=42470 Admissions on bail compliance recorded in Abdul Sheikh and Majibur Rehman cases; High Court demands clarity on legality of renewed detention without recall of earlier orders

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.

]]>
What We Know So Far: June 26, 2025

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.

]]>
Dalit and Tribal girls brutalised in Andhra Pradesh: Twin crimes lay bare caste violence and systemic collapse https://sabrangindia.in/dalit-and-tribal-girls-brutalised-in-andhra-pradesh-twin-crimes-lay-bare-caste-violence-and-systemic-collapse/ Mon, 23 Jun 2025 11:48:59 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=42412 From the two-year gang-rape of a 15-year-old Dalit girl to the public torture of a 10-year-old Adivasi child, Andhra Pradesh reels under the weight of caste atrocities, bureaucratic silence, and political blame games

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

]]>
Two horrifying cases of violence against minor girls from marginalised communities in Andhra Pradesh have shaken the conscience of the state. In one, a 15-year-old Dalit girl was allegedly gang-raped by 17 men over a span of nearly two years, leaving her eight months pregnant. In the other, a 10-year-old Adivasi (Scheduled Tribe) girl was brutally assaulted—stripped and burned with a hot stick—on the mere suspicion of stealing a mobile phone.

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.

]]>
Gauhati HC Orders Verification of compliance with Bail Conditions in petition filed by Reijya Khatun for detained husband https://sabrangindia.in/gauhati-hc-orders-verification-of-compliance-with-bail-conditions-in-petition-filed-by-reijya-khatun-for-detained-husband/ Mon, 23 Jun 2025 10:38:33 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=42390 High Court notes husband of petitioner was released in 2021 under Supreme Court guidelines, directs State to confirm weekly reporting before recent re-detention

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

]]>
What We Know So Far: June 20, 2025

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.

]]>
Visitation again allowed by Gauhati HC in Torap Ali petition as affidavit opposing claims of regular police reporting is filed https://sabrangindia.in/visitation-again-allowed-by-gauhati-hc-in-torap-ali-petition-as-affidavit-opposing-claims-of-regular-police-reporting-is-filed/ Mon, 23 Jun 2025 09:05:54 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=42393 Court records affidavit from SP (Border) opposing claim of regular police reporting; visitation allowed to meet two detained uncles at Kokrajhar Holding Centre; liberty granted for urgent mention if needed

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.

]]>
What We Know So Far: June 20, 2025

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.

]]>
Gauhati HC closes Habeas petition after Hasinur’s release from detention, declines compensation while acknowledging procedural default https://sabrangindia.in/gauhati-hc-closes-habeas-petition-after-hasinurs-release-from-detention-declines-compensation-while-acknowledging-procedural-default/ Mon, 23 Jun 2025 08:04:32 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=42387 Mozida Begum had sought compensation for son’s illegal re-arrest; Court acknowledges wrongful detention but refuses relief as FT challenge remains pending

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

]]>
What We Know So Far: June 20, 2025

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.

]]>
Gauhati HC seeks report on detained Abdul Sheikh’s weekly police appearances in compliance with bail conditions https://sabrangindia.in/gauhati-hc-seeks-report-on-detained-abdul-sheikhs-weekly-police-appearances-in-compliance-with-bail-conditions/ Fri, 20 Jun 2025 13:34:51 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=42377 Court notes that State never moved to recall bail order before re-detention; directs SP (Border) Chirang to confirm weekly police reporting before re-detention

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

]]>
What We Know So Far: June 20, 2025

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.

]]>
Gauhati HC orders state to explain how a man deemed to be “handed over to BSF” is found unconscious in a village in Assam https://sabrangindia.in/gauhati-hc-orders-state-to-explain-how-a-man-demed-to-be-handed-over-to-bsf-is-found-unconscious-in-a-village-in-assam/ Fri, 20 Jun 2025 12:52:49 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=42371 June 20 hearing reveals dramatic twist in Bakkar Ali case- Gauhati HC questions how Samsul Ali reappeared after official claims of BSF handover; directs petitioner to file affidavit, orders State to follow due process if deportation is attempted

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.

]]>
What We Know So Far: June 20, 2025

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.

]]>