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.

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.

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

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

Background of the case

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

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

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

Chronology of the proceedings in the High Court

June 6, 2025: Issuance of notice

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

June 11, 2025: Visitation granted, attendance verification ordered

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

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

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

June 20 hearing: Release confirmed, compensation refused

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

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

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

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

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

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

The case sets an important precedent on:

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

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

The order may be read here:

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petitioner seeks bail restoration

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

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

Court’s Direction: Verification of weekly attendance

Taking this into account, the Court directed that:

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

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

The order may be viewed here:

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

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

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

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

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

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Constitutional Dilemma: Whether to protect or provoke retaliatory detention

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

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

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

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

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

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

After resuming, Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta clarified:

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

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

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

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

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

The Court issued a cautiously worded but clear direction:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background: Three years in detention, bail and then disappearance

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

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

Timeline of the case

This case has seen incremental disclosures over successive hearings:

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

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

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

A case that challenges the integrity of deportation procedures

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

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

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

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Targeted Violence in April and May

In the months of April and May, CJP documented 180 instances of targeted violence against Indian Muslims post the Pahalgam attack. Of these, 77 took place in April, and 103 in May. These spanned from outright cases of murder (3 specific instances, 3 victims) to nearly 99 cases of hate speech (made by politicians, proponents of Hindutva and other individuals and organisations with affiliations to the Hindu-right). The attacks spiked between April 23 and 25 (10, 12 and 18 cases respectively), following a near-steady course of events right through May. The following is a visualisation of this pattern of violence across the month.

Graph representing number of incidences of communal violence in relation to time

CJP is dedicated to finding and bringing to light instances of Hate Speech, so that the bigots propagating these venomous ideas can be unmasked and brought to justice. To learn more about our campaign against hate speech, please become a member. To support our initiatives, please donate now!

These attacks were spread out across India, as demonstrated by this map – although they were majorly spatially concentrated in northern and central India – with Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Haryana being the 5 worst offenders – with 29, 28, 22, 21 and 10 instances respectively.

Pie-chart representing the percentage of targeted violence per-state

Many (at least 66 out of 180 incidents had the assailants referring to the Pahalgam attack or accusing the victims of allegiance to Pakistan, thus directly relating it to the same and the state’s narrativisation of the violence – thus bringing up the percentage to 36.66%. This does not obviously include incidents which did not have the perpetrators bringing up the attack or alluding some association to it, although, in most cases one can make the assumption that the spike in attacks is related to the perception of the attack) of these incidents were direct outcomes of the Pahalgam attack, with many of the perpetrators citing it as the reason for the same.

A chilling example would be the video of a man claiming responsibility for the killing of a young Muslim man, who was shot dead near a restaurant located on Shilpgram Road in Tajganj police station area, in Agra, Uttar Pradesh. The man in the video identifies himself as a member of ‘Kshatriya Gauraksha Dal’. “Bharat Mata ki saugandh, 26 ka badla agar 2,600 se na liya toh mei Bharat Mata ka putr nahi, Jai shri Ram, Jai Hindu Rashtra, Bharat Mata ki Jai”, the man is heard saying. The two men have knives and a pistol tucked inside their waist. Reacting to the viral video, Agra Police said, “Regarding the viral video on social media, it is to be informed that no organization named Kshatriya Gau Raksha Dal is working in Agra.”

This recent spike in attacks on India’s religious minorities must be contextualized — there is an establishment of a “new normal”. This systemic violent targeting of India’s Muslims (and Christians) can be traced back to 2014, when a new avatar of the Bharatiya Janata Party assumed control at the centre. The Centre for Study of Society and Secularism writes, “Historically, communal riots often involved groups from two religious communities clashing, with both sides inflicting and suffering losses … However, in recent years, the nature of larger riots has shifted. Instead of clashes between two communities, many significant riots now involve state actions disproportionately targeting the Muslim community. These actions include using bulldozers to demolish properties owned by Muslims, causing significant economic damage. Additionally, the state has slapped cases and implicated the members of the Muslim community, even in instances where they are victims of violence during communal riots. The disproportionate and seemingly one-sided state action has led to social discord, communal consciousness, and polarization. This atmosphere of communal tension has been steadily intensifying over recent years. For instance, the Pew Research Center, a respected research institution, categorized India in 2022 as “very high” on its Social Hostilities Index (SHI), with a score of 9.3. Social hostilities index (SHI) factors in levels of religion-related harassment, mob violence, terrorism, militant activity, and conflicts over religious conversions or the use of religious symbols and attire.” This also tracks with the India Hate Lab report, which stated that there was a 74.4% surge in hate speech in 2024, driven by the BJP, Hindutva outfits, and unchecked social media amplification.

Media, politics, and the act of communalisation

India has noticed a growing entrenchment of the systematisation of communalism and ensuing violence over the last decade. However, this is not a singular event that has stemmed from uniquely specific factors. This is a product of the country’s long history of communal tensions and Hindutva outfits’ responsibility in stoking the fires in ensuring that said tensions evolve into deeper, more dangerous rifts whose brunt is borne by the Muslim civilians in the country. Tanika Sarkar, well-known intellectual and former professor at the Jawaharlal Nehru University – who has written largely on Indian politics, society and religion, told DW, a global news TV program broadcast by German public state-owned international broadcaster Deutsche Welle (DW). “What happens is that war does not immediately translate into violence at home but it translates into very bitter memories and histories and allegations. I don’t know how it is on the Pakistani side, I suppose very much the same thing … In the latest conflict in particular, India’s news channels did not help. Between May 8 and May 10, some of the most viewed channels reported sensational, unverified information which later turned out to be false. That, coupled with messages circulated on WhatsApp, created an environment of fear. This is a situation where you can’t believe or disbelieve anything. And in that situation if you are so minded, then you will start looking at every Muslim with suspicion … Even if these attacks aren’t the norm, they create a psyche of fear in the hearts of every Muslim who lives in India.” CJP has, in a sustained campaign, complained against such media outlets and is pursuing some of these cases with the NBDSA even now.

What Sarkar mentions needs to be highlighted, because Indian news media has attained a near vitriolic status when it comes to war-mongering and proselytizing Islamophobia. TV anchors called for “Israel-like final solutions” and repeatedly attempted to mobilize public opinion against a possible ceasefire. The attitude of the unprofessional conduct of entrenched electronic media channels was a subject matter of comment on international media. Political commentators trying to provide more nuanced takes on the situation at hand were silenced or side-lined. Nupur J. Sharma, editor of OpIndia, tweeted, ““Nobody cares. keep your candles. Keep your apples. Keep your shawls. Keep your Kashmiriyat. Stop the bloody drama,” in response to a candle march held by Kashmiris in condemnation of the attack.

Columnist and political researcher Asim Ali wrote for The Telegraph, “The function of the communally-coded messaging broadcast on news channels is not to ‘reflect’ the anger of the audience, as they claim. It is to create and sustain an angry, communal subject that identifies with the incendiary scripts and is conditioned to demand revenge on a shady ‘Muslim’ enemy as well as its political supporters. It is to reinforce the authority of the political executive even though it has failed to fulfil the substantive demands of the citizenry, now transformed into a passive Hindu audience with its exogenously- seeded communal demands.

Historical Context

Ali writes, “The foundational moment of the present regime can, arguably, be located in the 2002 Gujarat riots where this political experiment of constructing and exorcising a Muslim enemy had been carried out to fruition. That experiment culminated in the re-election of the Modi-led state government over thousands of dead bodies. We have already seen several reports of attacks on Kashmiri students by right-wing vigilantes from different states in the last few days.” Ali connecting Pahalgam to the Gujarat riots is very well-founded, because this chamber of violence is not neo-natal in its construction. It has been tried, tested and perfected over decades of institutionalizing codes of conduct of perpetuating harm towards the Islamic “other”.

To contextualize this further, one could look at the media coverage of the 2002 riots and the differences in its approach. In the Concerned Citizens Tribunal Report, Crimes Against Humanity released in November 2002, the Tribunal noted, “On February 28, the two largest circulation, multiple-edition Gujarati newspapers, Sandesh and  Gujarat Samachar, which are fairly dependent on the state government’s largesse, played up the unsubstantiated official version of there being a ‘foreign hand’ behind the Godhra tragedy. It was only 3-4 weeks later that reports rubbishing this theory began to appear in newspapers. But by that time, the damage had already been done. Sandesh and Gujarat Samachar have been playing a blatantly communal role since the BJP returned to power in Gujarat in 1998. The BJP government’s patronage of these dailies needs to be looked into carefully, so that they do not continue to act as mere government agents. In the recent carnage, too, the role of Sandesh was particularly mischievous, while some smaller circulation newspapers like Gujarat Today, Sadhbhav and Gujarat Mitra acted responsibly.”

A study done by Saifuddin Ahmed titled The Role of the Media during Communal Riots in India points out that national television media coverage of the riots had been “bold and independent” with journalists like Rajdeep Sardesai and Barkha Dutt at Star News repeatedly condemning the victimisation of the Muslims in Gujarat during the riots. Print publications like The Times of India and The Indian Express carried headlines that highlighted the atrocities faced by the Muslim communities. This of course resulted in them receiving a lot of flak from the BJP administration in Gujarat and the centre. According to Ahmed, “The Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, addressed the nation a day after the attacks, regretting the “disgraceful” violence. He later on added that the news media were presenting an “exaggerated” account of the situation in Gujarat. The BJP and the state government under Narendra Modi singled out STAR News and banned cable operators from showing the channel in the state. The viewers in Ahmedabad, one of the worst affected regions in the riots, were left with blank television screens, unaware of the reality happening on the streets. Cable operators received calls from local officials in Ahmedabad and other cities to completely blackout STAR News, Zee News, CNN and Aaj Tak. Dossiers and “hitlists” on journalists were reportedly prepared while the channels which dared to reveal the truth and were critical of the Chief Minister and his plan of actions were not invited to the press conferences and hence were denied the basic right to information by the state itself.”

One sees this model amplified in its worst possible form with – whose control is currently concentrated in the hands of corporate conglomerates with firm affiliations to the Indian state apparatus. This facilitation of the development of a monolithic opinion that centralizes hate is strengthened by the hostile crackdown on independent media outlets covering communal hatred and opposing the regime’s machinery. Over the course of the last month, the websites of multiple independent news media platforms such as that of The Wire, Maktoob Media, have been blocked by the government. One could also think of the temporarily blocking of the X account of Anuradha Bhasin, editor of Kashmir Times. In the last few years, the Indian government has zeroed down on completely dismantling press freedom by revoking non-profit status from independent news media outlets, routinely charging journalists with sedition and terrorism – and even monitoring them with the Israeli spyware, Pegasus. One must also remember, that several of the most powerful accused of the Gujarat riots have been released, and now roam free, having escaped through loopholes and intentional pardoning.

This however does not absolve less powerful or non-media actors of their role in furthering the bile of “revenge”. Al Jazeera found almost 20 songs that built on Hindutva-aligning sentiments that were meant to be incendiary. While H-Pop (Hindutva Pop) with a high degree of hate content has been a visible phenomenon over the past decade, Caravan and CJP have analysed these, Pahalgam gave this new hate music market a new focus and twist. All of these songs infiltrated into the timelines of Indian social media users, with outright calls for Hindus to identify the “traitors within the country”. At the same time, politicians and members of the Hindu right continued with the single focus agenda which is to lace every issue, every speech with its own peculiar dose of targeted hate.

According to our data, there were over 100 instances of hate speeches in the country. Here is an example, on May 5, in Bankura, West Bengal BJP MP Saumitra Khan, while submitting a memorandum demanding the deportation of alleged Pakistani nationals residing in the state, “urged Hindus to sell their land and houses only to fellow Hindus. He alleged that once their children move away and they pass away, Rohingyas would eventually occupy their homes”. In another instance, on May 4, BJP MLA Ravinder Singh Negi, “speaking at a religious event in a temple, claimed that Muslims train their children to become extremists in madrasas instead of providing them with proper education. He questioned why Hindus could not raise their children as extremists in temples. He also invoked the Pahalgam attack and dog-whistled for a boycott of those he described as ‘traitors’ within the country.”

One often sees politicians attributing the rise in communalism to the populace, rather than the multiple perpetrators of the same. Here, we could think of the concept of Astroturfing — which “is the deceptive practice of hiding the sponsors of an orchestrated message or organization (e.g., political, economic, advertising, religious, or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from, and is supported by, unsolicited grassroots participants.” This could simply be translated to this: it is a process where a top-down method of dissemination is falsely recognised or propagated as a bottom-up one. If we were to integrate this conceptual framework with what Nalin Mehta writes in Modi and the Camera: The Politics of Television in the 2002 Gujarat Riots — “For our purpose, John B. Thompson’s notion of ‘mediated communication’, where he taps into the hermeneutic tradition to postulate that individuals are not passive recipients of symbolic messages from the communication media, is also pertinent. Messages from the mass media are received in settings spatially and temporally remote from the original context of production and the recipient’s own assumptions and expectations regulate how they are interpreted and appropriated,” – we would understand why things are the way they happen to be.

Responses

The institutional / state response to most of these hate crimes have not been very appropriate, with an observable systemic apathy in the nature of action taken by the administration / police forces. Most Chief Ministers of the states in question have not addressed the rising  tensions within their respective states, instead focusing on urging for befitting replies and prices that need to be paid. The police have been no better, in most cases being entirely absent from the scenes of violence, in others being complicit in institutional violence.

Graph representing the response of police in respective cases of hate crimes

Out of 180 data entries that were made situations where it was
Unclear if there was a case filed: 135 cases
Institutional Violence: 7 cases
Appropriate / Immediate police action: 15 cases
Definitively no case filed: 6
Police took action that harmed the Muslim victim: 17 cases

Out of the 39 cases that had clear police involvement, 53% or 24 of those cases were ones where the police were complicit outright. The other thing to be mentioned here is in all the cases where we are dealing with unclear police involvement, we are unsure whether no case has been filed or whether attempts were made and then rejected.

The worst affected, however, have been Kashmiris and Kashmiri Muslims, in particular. Following the Pahalgam attack, surveillance has intensified in Kashmir. According to Kashmir Times, “In the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack, security forces have launched extensive operations across Kashmir, demolishing about a dozen houses using explosives and conducting widespread searches and detentions. At least 1500 people are said to have been detained. The demolitions have occurred in multiple districts including Pulwama, Shopian, Anantnag, Kupwara, and Bandipora”.  There have been multiple incidents of Kashmiri students being harassed in other states, creating an almost paranoid sense of hypervigilance among these individuals. Kashmiri businessmen have also found themselves in trouble, where selling their wares has become near-impossible within the current climate.

Mirza Waheed, writer born in Srinagar, Kashmir, wrote for The Guardian, “Kashmiris have never wanted to be a bone of contention between the two states; they have paid a staggeringly steep price for this 75-year relationship of attrition. Internally, Kashmir has never really been normal, despite the narrative push and despite the appearance of normality, scripted elsewhere and executed on the ground through a security-administrative complex. Underneath the quiet, there is growing resentment at what Kashmiris see as their incremental and cumulative dispossession and disempowerment, in the form of new domicile and land laws, and in the absence of any real representational politics. Human rights activists, journalists and politicians remain in jail under harsh anti-terror laws. Nobody is allowed to speak; surveillance is probably at its highest since the start of the armed insurgency in the late 1980s; a previously independent and robust press has almost entirely been forced into a supine, compliant role. Most accounts from Kashmir speak of suppressed anger at the growing powerlessness and the humiliating deprivation of agency. Many Kashmiris talk about dham, a quiet, bruising suffocation, with no space to breathe. That all this is fertile ground for militancy is hardly a surprise, whether local or Pakistan-sponsored.”

All seems to remain unwell, in the land of what has turned out to be the homeland of misdiagnosed glory and gore.

(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this graphic visualisation report has been worked on by Saptaparma Samajdar)

Sources

1. https://m.thewire.in/article/media/communalisation-pahalgam-reinforcing-anti-muslim-sentiment
2. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/4/29/traitors-hate-filled-songs-target-indian-muslims-after-kashmir-attack
3. https://muslimmirror.com/right-wing-media-channels-peddle-anti-muslim-narratives-after-pahalgam-attack/
4. https://www.deccanherald.com/india/uttarakhand/uttarakhand-cm-condemns-terror-attack-in-jks-pahalgam-3505295
5. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/kashmir-domicile-law-raises-fears-of-losing-land-culture-idUSKCN24T007/
6. https://www.amnesty.org.uk/blogs/country-specialists/five-years-silence-and-struggle-kashmir
7. https://article-14.com/post/-what-did-i-do-after-pahalgam-attack-kashmiri-students-in-at-least-4-northern-states-face-intimidation-threats-isolation–680b16d1a8d53
8. https://www.thehindu.com/education/pahalgam-attack-casts-a-shadow-over-jammu-and-kashmir-students-outside-state/article69531760.ece
9. https://www.dw.com/en/india-pakistan-conflict-risks-deepening-religious-tensions/a-72529635
10. https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1080/00856400601031989
11. https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/05/03/india-media-freedom-under-threat#:~:text=Amid%20growing%20restrictions%20on%20media,spyware%20Pegasus%20to%20target%20journalists.
12. https://cjp.org.in/role-of-the-media-how-hate-was-spread-in-2002-in-gujarat/

The post CJP breaks down post-Pahalgam hate attacks through graphics and data appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The June 16 order may be read below.

Why attendance matters?

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of prior proceedings

1. May 28, 2025

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

The order may be read here.

2. May 29, 2025

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

The order may be read here.

3. June 4, 2025

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

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

The order may be read here.

4. June 16, 2025

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

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

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

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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