In a deeply unsettling supplementary memorandum submitted to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) on June 4, 2025, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) have presented new evidence of a systematic campaign of detentions and cross-border expulsions of Bengali-speaking Muslim persons from Assam, without following due legal process. Based on over a dozen first-person testimonies and verified field documentation, the memorandum alleges that Assam Police and Border Security forces allegedly forcibly deported individuals—including elderly women, children, the chronically ill, and individuals previously granted legal relief—without following any lawful process or judicial sanction.

The original memo submitted to NHRC may be accessed here.

Survivors Speak: “They took our documents and our names”

The memorandum’s comprises six testimonies from women—aged between 35 and 65—who were picked up from their homes, detained incommunicado, stripped of identity papers, and forcibly pushed into Bangladeshi territory by Indian authorities between May 25 and May 30, 2025. These testimonies were collected in the first week of June by CJP’s ground team in Assam.

Among them is Hajera Khatun, a frail diabetic woman protected by a Gauhati High Court stay order. She recounts being summoned to the SP office and then disappearing into a nightmarish journey through detention, alleged beatings, and abandonment in “no man’s land.” Another survivor, Sona Bhanu, whose deportation had been stayed by the Supreme Court since 2018, was allegedly blindfolded, given Bangladeshi currency, and dumped across the border under threat. “We thought they would shoot us,” she recalled.

The other four—Rahima Begum, Jahanara Begum, Ashifa Begum, and Sahera Khatun—shared eerily similar experiences: fingerprinted without consent, denied food and water, mocked, allegedly beaten, and pushed through swamps under cover of darkness. Some were later discovered by Bangladeshi villagers and sent back. Several suffer from trauma and health complications, with no support provided by Indian authorities upon return. (Details may be read here.)

The Kin Left Behind: “We found her in a Facebook video from Bangladesh”

CJP also documented testimonies from the families of the disappeared. In many cases, relatives were given no information for days, left to guess at the fate of their loved ones through viral videos or social media posts from across the border.

• Barek Ali, son of Manikjan Begum, said: “We went to the SP office to give her the baby. After that—nothing. Then someone sent us a video from a Bangladeshi news channel. She was standing in a field with my baby sister.”
• Imran Ali Khan searched for his mother, Maleka Begum, across detention camps after she was taken on May 25. He finally saw her face in a social media post from Bangladesh.
• Babul Hussain, son of stroke-afflicted Altap Hussain, described how police dragged his paralyzed father away at 2:30 AM. “I brought his medicines, but no one told me where he was.”

In each case, the pattern is consistent: unannounced detention, no arrest records, no legal procedure, no communication—and families left begging for scraps of information.

The four released

Perhaps the most shocking revelation is that four individuals previously released through CJP’s legal efforts—after being declared “foreigners” and spending years in detention—have once again been similarly expelled. Their names:

• Doyjan Bibi
• Abdul Sheikh
• Mojibur Sheikh
• Samsul Ali

Each had been released from Goalpara or other detention camps through court-monitored bail proceedings and had been complying with all conditions—regular police appearances, and possession of valid documentation. Despite this, all four were re-detained and forcibly removed from Indian Territory without any deportation orders, legal notice, or due process.

Doyjan Bibi, for example, was allegedly pushed across the border and is now in Mymensingh District Jail in Bangladesh, facing criminal charges under Section 4 of the Bangladesh Control of Entry Act. Her forcible expulsion into foreign territory while her citizenship case remains pending in India amounts to being driven by questionable acts of the Assam Border Police into a state of statelessness.

Abdul Sheikh and Mojibur Sheikh have been located via social media posts stranded in No Man’s Land, cut off from aid, legal recourse, or repatriation. Samsul Ali has reportedly been taken into custody by Bangladeshi police at Patgram Police Station. All had been under legal supervision and yet were disappeared and dumped across borders in a blatant violation of laws.

Stolen identities, and violated rights

CJP’s memorandum lays out an expansive account of unlawful conduct:

• Detentions without warrant or disclosure
• Fingerprinting and biometric data collection without consent
• Seizure and destruction of legal identity documents
• Transport to detention centres in secrecy
• Abandonment in dangerous, unsheltered border terrain
• Mistreatment by Bangladeshi guards and villagers
• Denial of medical care and separation of mothers from infants

A call for action

CJP have urged the NHRC to:

• Launch an urgent, independent inquiry into these operations
• Summon senior Assam officials to account for each disappearance and expulsion
• Provide legal, medical, and psychological support to all survivors
• Cease all illegal deportations and protect vulnerable minorities
• Prosecute and punish officials responsible for these violations
• Locate and ensure the safe return of all missing persons

The memorandum closes with a stark warning: “This is an unprecedented human rights and humanitarian crisis/ emergency. The Constitution does not permit any government to extinguish liberty, ignore judicial process, and abandon citizens to the peril of statelessness or exile. We urge the NHRC to take strong, immediate, and public action to halt these abuses and restore the rule of law in Assam.”

The complete supplementary memo may be read here.

Related:

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

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

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

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

The post CJP’s submits supplementary memo to NHRC revealing returnee testimonies after Assam’s allegedly unlawful expulsion of persons to Bangladesh appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In hearings on two separate writ petitions, filed with the legal aid of Citizens for Justice and Peace, the High Court bench of Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Malasri Nandi directed the State and FT counsel to place on record whether the two individuals are currently in custody or have been deported. The matter is listed for further hearing on June 9. During the hearing of the case, the bench had orally remarked that the families of the individuals detained must be made aware about their current status, barring the fact whether they are citizens or not.

Yet for the moment, the Court refused to examine whether these detentions and potential deportations were lawful — putting aside concerns raised in the petitions about the arbitrary nature of the arrests, the absence of legal safeguards, and the broader climate of impunity surrounding forced deportations in Assam.

Background to the cases

Abdul Sheikh and Majibar Rahman were both declared “foreigners” in FT proceedings in 2018 and 2019 respectively. The orders, annexed with the petitions filed by their family members, contain minimal reasoning and do not identify any specific alternative nationality. Both individuals were subsequently detained in a detention centre but were released after completing two years in custody, in line with Supreme Court directions issued during the pandemic.

For context, the Supreme Court, in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1045 of 2018 (Supreme Court Legal Services Committee v. Union of India & Anr.), passed an order dated on May 10, 2019 directing the conditional release of such detainees who had completed more than three years of detention. Subsequently, in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1 of 2020, the Supreme Court in its April 13, 2020 order further reduced the mandatory detention period to two years, permitting release subject to bond, sureties, and biometric submission.

Following their release, both men had been complying with the conditions imposed — including weekly reporting to the police station. As per the petition filed by both the petitioners, it has been indicated that both last signed the register at Kajolgaon Police Station on May 21, just four days before they were picked up.

Both Abdul Sheikh, a father from Chatibargaon village, and Majibar Rahman, a daily wage labourer from Madhyam Salijhora, were forcibly picked up from their homes by police personnel from Kajolgaon Police Station at around 11:30 PM on May 25, 2025. There was no arrest memo, no warrant, no formal cancellation of their earlier release on bail. The families’ petitions — filed by their son and wife respectively — describe how the next morning, when family members rushed to the police station, they were refused information, not allowed to meet the men, and turned away without explanation.

When the families attempted to file an FIR, the police refused to accept it. Only after mailing complaints by registered post to senior police officials did, they create a paper trail. Enquiries at Matia Detention Centre yielded no information. In the days that followed, disturbing reports began emerging — of individuals declared “foreigners” being secretly pushed into Bangladesh in alleged violation of international law and the Constitution.

It has been emphasised in their petitions that they were arrested from their homes without any formal warrant, arrest memo, or cancellation of bail. Family members claim they were not informed of the men’s whereabouts and were not permitted to file an FIR in person — ultimately resorting to registered post to communicate their complaints to senior officials.

Legal relief sought by the families

Both petitions — filed by Sanidul Sheikh (son of Abdul) and Rejiya Khatun (wife of Majibar) — assert that the men are Indian citizens by birth. They own property, were enrolled as voters in Assam, and have never left the country. Their parents too were Indian by birth and long-time residents of Assam. But due to poverty, illiteracy, and lack of legal support, they never challenged the FT opinions. And as their petitions point out, India’s citizenship law does not require Indian-born citizens to carry specific “citizenship documents.”

The families, through their petitions, had sought a writ of habeas corpus or similar direction, requiring the State to produce the two individuals before a competent court or magistrate. They also sought an injunction against any deportation action without following due legal process, including the verification of nationality in accordance with established procedures.

The petitions specifically cited the Rajubala Das v. Union of India matter pending before the Supreme Court, in which the State of Assam has filed an affidavit outlining the procedural steps for deportation (September 2023), including diplomatic verification and coordination with the Ministry of External Affairs. Importantly, neither Abdul Sheikh nor Majibar Rahman were named among those individuals alleged to have violated bail or absconded. Additionally, their release orders were never cancelled. They remained fully compliant — until they were suddenly made to disappear.

The petitions also argued that the FT declarations lacked substantive reasoning and did not conclusively establish particular foreign nationality — raising concerns about possible statelessness in the event of deportation. However, the High Court did not entertain this line of argument in today’s hearing.

Court’s observations

In both matters, the Gauhati High Court acknowledged the families’ right to be informed of the current status of their relatives. It directed the State and FT counsel to submit details regarding their location and, if applicable, the fact of deportation. In both cases, the bench directed the State and FT counsel to “provide information regarding the current position of the person” — and “if deported, information for the same shall be provided.”

However, the Court declined to issue notice to the Union of India or pass any interim order restraining deportation. It observed that the FT orders had not been appealed or set aside and thus stood as the operative legal determination of the individuals’ status.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on Monday, June 9, 2025.

These cases highlight an increasingly common scenario in Assam, where individuals declared as “foreigners” by FTs — often based on limited evidence or ex parte proceedings — are at risk of removal from the country even years after release on bail. The petitions raise procedural questions around arrest, detention, and deportation, particularly in situations where nationality remains unverified and legal safeguards appear to have been bypassed.

While today’s direction provides some relief to the families in terms of official disclosure, the High Court’s refusal to examine the legality of potential deportations or procedural lapses may leave broader concerns unresolved.

Supreme Court’s recent directives in Rajubala vs Union of India case

In an Order passed in this matter on March 21, 2025, the SC had inter alia stated that:

“Under the Order dated 4th February, 2025, a direction was issued to the Union of India to deal with the second category of persons where the Tribunal has declared that the persons are not Indian nationals but their nationality is not known. We grant time till end of April, 2025 to Union of India to respond on the issue of second category of persons highlighted in order dated 4th February, 2025 which will be considered on 6th May, 2025. 

Those persons who are detained in the detention camp desire to challenge orders declaring their nationality, the Assam State Legal Service Authority shall provide necessary assistance to them.”

2. The above Order was passed after the Affidavit of the State of Assam filed with details of 63 Detainees on March 20, 2025. Deportation, following due procedure, was outlined in an earlier affidavit in the same case dated September 5, 2023. The said affidavit had been filed by of Arvind Sharma, Director, Ministry of Home Affairs in which the procedure for deportation was outlined.

A previous detailed Order of the Supreme Court on February 4, 2025, had made strong observations on the fact that addresses and nationality of several persons detailed by them were not available with the union government. Dates of the National Verification Status purportedly sent to the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and other details are also vague, states the order.

These issues become relevant given the public declarations of the Assam authorities that the current sweep on residents (in the guise of calling them “illegal immigrants”) has been undertaken following a recent Order of the Supreme Court.

The SC Orders dated March 21 and February 4 may be read here and here.

Related:

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

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

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

The post Gauhati HC directs State to confirm custody or deportation of two men detained in midnight police action in Assam appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It has been ten days of trauma and sleepless nights for thousands of working class citizens in the north eastern state of Assam. When the Assam Border Police, backed by no legal authority, no warrants, simply swept down on all 33 districts and selectively picked up women, women with babes in arms, men and illegally detained them before many of them were allegedly pushed across the international border into Bangladesh. CJP’s first exclusive report may be read here.

A week later, yesterday, Sunday June 1, some respite was felt, even as anger and trauma reigned. News and accounts of several such illegally detained citizens being “dumped back” in different locales in Assam, with no explanation trickled in. There is of course no talk, not a murmur even of reparation or compensation, for what they had been put through.

CJP’s team members met with and interviewed six such women. Whom fate had rescued. Dozens of those detained still remain untraceable, an approximate figure of those who were initially untraceable, as per unconfirmed reports is 145.

Hajera Khatun:

Over 60 years old, Hajera Khatun, is the daughter of Kurpan Ali, and wife of Sangser Ali from village Bhalluki under Barpeta road police Station of Barpeta District. This Bengali-speaking Muslim women who is a diabetic patient was allegedly forcefully and illegally detained by the Assam Border Police on May 25. She was taken to an entirely unknown place.

Hajera Khatun was not unfamiliar with being detained. She was once detained in one of Assam’s dreaded detention camps –women are kept at Kokhrajhar—and was released on temporary bail in 2021. Her case is pending in the Gauhati High Court and it is of significance that under directives of the Gauhati HC she could not have been deported. Yet she was. CJP has accessed a copy of her documents.

Like dozens of others from different parts of Assam, this poor Indian woman was taken away by the police on May 25. She was not found since. Her family members searched desperately for her for over a week, seeking assistance from CJP’s legal and paralegal team too. However she could not be traced. Finally, when she reached home on May 30 (Friday), CJP volunteers including CJP’s state-in-charge, Nanda Ghosh and advocate Abhijeet Choudhary met and interviewed her.

When the team first reached her home she was found to be ill due to high blood pressure and had been taken for medical assistance and treatment by her family members. After about an hour, Hajera share her pain, “The police simply came and told me –without giving reasons–to go to the office of the Superintendent of Police (SP) on May 25. I got terrified, and asked, ‘Why would I go to the SP office?”

She continued, “They took me away from here saying, ‘How many more days will you have to appear like this? It’s hard on you, and it’s hard on us too.’” They said they’d make some arrangement today so that you wouldn’t have to come (to report regular presence) anymore and that thereafter we wouldn’t have to do anything. That is only how and why I went with them.”

“From the office of the SP at Barpeta, —I’m not exactly sure—but there were three-four busloads of people. Later, they took only two buses and left two behind. So many people just did not want to go, but they were beaten and forced into the bus and the doors shut. Then, they took us to the Matia Detention Camp (in Goalpara district) (This is about 91 kilometres, about a three hour drive from Barpeta). We spent the whole day and night without food. The next day, around 10 am, we were still sitting in the bus. Then they took us out and gave us a little bit of rice, after some time. We were so frightened, we could not even eat properly. After that, we thought we’d be allowed to sit inside the room where we were, for a bit. As soon as we sat down, they called us again, saying they needed to take our photos. We went, leaving our bags and money in the room where we had sat, thinking we would reclaim them after the photo session. But, after taking photos, they closed the gate of the Detention Centre, again. Then they began herding us into the bus like cattle, and one person, a teacher amongst us was protesting loudly, asking why the women were being treated so harshly and why they were being subjected to such suffering. He was even trying to stop the women from being taken away like that. However, despite his efforts, we were still forced onto the bus by police. The teacher who was resisting and trying to intervene was brutally beaten in front of our eyes, his eyes were covered, and his hands were tied behind his back,” she fearfully described to us.

Hajera trembled, saying, “Khairul Master [Khairul Islam, the teacher] was beaten so severely that he lost consciousness.” She continued, “The (Assam Border Police) gave each of us a packet, which contained two notes of that country’s currency (Bangladeshi currency). Then we were taken to the border, they made us get off the bus and cross the border, it was so terrifying and horrible.”

“They told us, ‘don’t say a word, don’t talk “, Hajera cried as she recounted the pain of a week ago.

She stopped and then said, “We stood there, in that dreadful place all night, drenched in the rain, hungry, at the border.”

“In the morning, Bangladeshi people and police found us and they asked us why we Indians had entered Bangladesh. Then they brought us back to the BSF (Border Security Force), the police of the two countries talked all day, but no one was there for us, to speak for us. They just physically pushed us around. We just kept crying and weeping in fear being tossed between the borders of the two countries border (No Man’s Land). Just like this, the last few days have been spent in terror. Then, the police caught us and put us in a camp. The next morning, the police from both countries talked about us, but reached no agreement; no one agreed to take us!” Hajera added. “We don’t know how or why but suddenly we were driven back.”

Hajera’s son added, “Last night around 11 pm, that is the night of (May 31, Saturday) we received news that my mother (Hajera) and a woman named Sona Bhanu were both found on the Goalpara highway. I then called Jubbar bhai (local student leader, AAMSU) here, we took a car and rescued my mother. ”

Sona Bhanu:

Sona Bhanu is a 59-year-old widow from Burikumar village in Barpeta district, who was similarly allegedly “taken away” by the Assam police on May 25 and went missing. She suddenly reappeared on the Goalpara highway around 11:30 pm on June 1. Sona Bhanu’s journey to this point has been marked by a long-standing dispute over her citizenship. In 2013, the Barpeta Foreigners’ Tribunal declared her a foreigner, a decision upheld by the Gauhati High Court in 2016. However, the Supreme Court intervened in 2018, staying the Gauhati high court’s order. CJP has accessed a copy of her documents.

Her younger brother, Asraf Ali, expressed his frustration with the CJP team; “We have all the necessary documents, including our presence recorded in the 1951 NRC. Our parents are Indian, and all of us siblings are Indian citizens. How can my sister be considered Bangladeshi?” He highlighted a potential case of mistaken identity, explaining that a notice from the border police was initially issued in the name of “Kamala Bhanu” but was later altered to “Sona Bhanu” without explanation.

Asraf Ali recounted Sona Bhanu’s ordeal; “The Barpeta Tribunal declared my sister a foreigner and confined her to the Kokrajhar detention camp. After spending 3 years, 3 months, and 13 days in detention, she was released on bail and has since been required to report to the local police station weekly.”

Sona Bhanu herself described the terrifying events that unfolded, her voice trembling with fear. She recounted being forced towards Bangladesh by the police or force, spending a harrowing night in No Man’s Land. “I was bitten by leeches and mosquitoes all night, and I got a fever from getting wet in the rain,” she said, adding, “We were afraid they would shoot us dead in the dark of night, who knows?”

As per Bhanu’s account, she was driven back to India as part of the same group of people as Khatun.

Rahima Begum:

About 51 years old, Rahima, a Muslim women from the Padumoni village of Golaghat returned to her home from the No Man’s land between India and Bangladesh with the same batch of people, Hajera and Sona.

In a telephonic interview with team CJP, Rahima and her son Rakib Uddin Choudhury described the harrowing experience. Just like Sona and Hajera, Rahima was also pushed out to Bangladesh forcefully. Her son described her ordeal, “On 25 May the Assam Border Police told my mother to go to the police station to answer some questions. After spending the morning there, they took her to the Golaghat SP office. “He continued, “They then took my mother documents, and they collected fingerprints with those of some others.”

“My sisters and family members were there the whole day. But they were not allowed to meet my mother. Late night they took my Mother to Goalpara detention camp and then Border.”

Rahima’s son went on to describe the ordeal, “The Police who were with my mother and others, they gave them Bangladeshi notes (currency) and directed them to cross the border” Rahima added, “All we could see was paddy fields, mud and water. We just did not know what to do.”

She continued, “The others and I just walked between the paddy fields until we reached a village. But the people there chased us away and their border forces called us, beat us up a lot and told us to go back to where we came from.” Her son even claimed that his mother was subjected to violence by the Bangladeshi police.

Jahanara Begum-Ashifa Begum- Sahera Khatun:

Jahanara Begum of Diring Pathar Village under Biswanath Charali police Station of Sonipur Police Station was detained by the Assam police on May 25 and was fortunate to be back home –after a traumatic experience –on May 29. On May 27 one of her family members even went to the Matia Detention Centre and there met team CJP (including  Nanda Ghosh, Habibul Bepari, advocate Ashim Mubarak and advocate Dewan Abdur Rahim). When Jahanara fortuitously reached home, family members informed CJP.

In a telephonic interview with CJP, Jahanara was attempting to describe the unimaginable experience, even though she was quite unwell. She recounted that two other women, Ashifa Begum and Sahera Khatun of Dhekiajuli were also allegedly forced out of their homeland into ‘No Man’s Land’ before reaching back home. Their story is similar to Hajera and Shona’s account.

Unaccounted others: Also as per per Hajera and Sona Bhanu account to CJP, when they were “returned to Goalpara at night, there were five other men with them, meaning there were seven people in their group including Hajera and Sona. However they do not have any idea of their name or identity.

Meanwhile CJP has confirmed reports that Khairul Islam the teacher from Morigaon who was allegedly brutalised by the Assam Border Police at Matia Detention Centre was initially part of the group of 14 that had been pushed over into No Man’s Land but after that action the group was “divided” –by the Bangladeshi Security forces– into two parts of seven and seven and Khairul Islam was then in the other group. Rahima also told CJP that with her, one more woman had been brought back to Jorhat police station from no man’s land but she did not know her name.

With the level of unaccountability of the state authorities, human rights organisations and survivors have to use community methods to calculate the extent of the trauma.

Release from Matia detention camp:

Meawnhile, CJP team member, Zesmin Sultana has informed us that one similar victim of arbitrary detention, Rahim Ali back was sent back to his home in Goalapra District after being kept at the Matia Detention camp from May 29 and released on May 31, a detention period of two days. His identity is Rohim (Rahim) Ali, son of Dobiram Sangma, mother Jelmish Marak belonging to the Christian Garo trive from village Paikan pt-1, Krishnai.

Background of the Incident:

From the night of May 23, 2025, the Assam police initiated a widespread crackdown across all 33 districts, detaining approximately 300 individuals in many cases without notice or legal justification. Families and advocates were left uninformed about the detainees’ whereabouts, violating constitutional and legal norms. While around 150 were reportedly released, unconfirmed reports suggest 145 individuals—still fighting for their citizenship rights—were forcibly pushed across the border into ‘no man’s land’ between India and Bangladesh. These individuals include those declared foreigners by tribunals, those released on bail, even those litigating for restoration of citizenship. Notably, no formal deportation orders or bilateral repatriation agreements have been disclosed, leaving the affected families in uncertainty.

On one hand, many people are missing, and on the other hand, neither the police nor other administrative authorities are providing clarification to the families about the missing people who were taken away by the police.

Many victims’ families complain, saying they attempted to have an FIR registered at the police station but that the cops did not register one, following which they sent their complaint by post to the local SP

It is noteworthy that the CJP Assam team submitted this memorandum to the National Human Rights Commission, which was signed by the CJP Assam team members and legal team members and the chief convener of the Forum for Social Harmony.

Meanwhile, although there has been no major protest, there is anger among many people in Assam.  There is also a lot of discussion among people about who issued the orders and why were Indian citizens –even those with contested citizenship– sent to Bangladesh in such a cloak and dagger fashion. If some of them were actually Bangladeshi, why were deportation norms as detailed by the union government in the recent Rajubala proceedings not followed? Why did Bangladesh then not accept them? Most critically, where are those who are still missing? And who will pay for the trauma and torture subjected on ordinary Indians?

Related:

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

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

The post Assam: When six ordinary Indian women were forcibly pushed out from India–No Man’s land– Bangladesh & then back appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As detailed in the memorandum, this entire move by the Assam Border Police from May 23 onwards shrouded in secrecy, and executed with flagrant disregard for constitutional safeguards, legal procedures, and even ongoing court cases. The most chilling claim: many of those missing may have been forcibly pushed across the Indo-Bangladesh border—a move that amounts to extra-legal expulsion and, potentially, statelessness.

Last Monday, May 26, CJP’s Team Assam had spent the entire day outside the Matia Detention Centre with legal aid volunteers and advocates in a bid to get information from the authorities on the identities of those detained. They found not the Jailor but the Assam Police in charge. Efforts were also made to submit a detailed memorandum to the Detention Centre authorities, citing judicial precedents and NHRC guidelines on procedures of detention and rights of detainees and families, advocate. When authorities refused to accept this, in flagrant violation of the Constitution and the law, this memorandum too has been despatched to the authorities by email and speed post. The exclusive ground report, published two days later may be read here.

The crackdown: Fear, silence, and disappearances

The CJP’s memorandum presents a grim chronology. Night raids by Assam’s Border Police reportedly swept across 33 districts from May 23 onwards, detaining individuals from their homes without warrants, memos, or explanations amounting to a form of abduction. No legal counsel was allowed. Families were left in the dark about their whereabouts or safety.

Approximately 150 detainees were later released, but at least 145 people reportedly remain untraceable—many suspected to have been dumped into “no man’s land” between India and Bangladesh.

(Note-Since the memorandum was sent on Saturday, reports of at least six persons being brought back by the BSF to the homes of the distraught, after the Bangladesh Ground Guard (BGB) refuted claims that they were Bangladeshi. Mal treatment however was meted out in the interim, and several dozen are still untraceable)

The detained include:

• Individuals who had been released on temporary bail by courts on the orders of the Supreme Court in 2021
• Citizens who were still litigating their status before Foreigners Tribunals, the Gauhati High Court, or even the Supreme Court
• People who had lived in Assam for generations and whose names appear in the National Register of Citizens (NRC)

One particularly egregious case is that of Khairul Islam, a retired government schoolteacher from Morigaon. Despite his ongoing petition in the Supreme Court, Islam was picked up by police on May 23. Days later, he appeared in a video from Bangladesh’s Kurigram district, confirming he had been forcibly expelled at 4 AM—an act tantamount to extra-judicial deportation. (Subsequent local reports on Sunday, June 1 reveal that Khairul Islam was also among one of those fortunate to have been brought back home).

Personal tragedies in the shadows of state power

CJP’s memorandum documents the lives behind the numbers, providing intimate profiles of individuals who vanished in the sweep. Among them:

• Doyjan Bibi, detained despite NRC inclusion, released on temporary bail in 2021, and now missing since May 24.
• Abdul Sheikh, a senior citizen displaced multiple times by communal violence, disappeared after the May 24 crackdown.
• Mojibor Sheikh, a daily wage labourer whose minor son was forced to drop out of school to support the family after Mojibor’s detention; now untraceable.
• Samsul Ali, 67, with valid legacy documents from 1951, disappeared despite suffering from chronic health conditions.

All of these had been legally temporarily released in prior years and actively engaging with the justice system, but were now forcibly removed without notice—rendered voiceless and invisible.

A legal, constitutional, and humanitarian catastrophe

CJP’s memorandum is not just a plea for redress—it is a devastating indictment of what it calls a “stealth administrative purge” targeting a vulnerable minority community.

Key legal violations identified:

• Constitutional Rights:
  • Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty
  • Article 22: Right to be informed of the grounds of arrest and access to legal counsel
• Supreme Court Precedents:
  • D.K. Basu, Joginder Kumar, Vihaan Kumar: All mandating transparency, legal access, and procedural safeguards during arrests and detentions
• Statutory Breaches:
  • Numerous provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and the former CrPC, including rights to bail, medical care, and judicial oversight, were reportedly flouted
• NHRC’s Own Arrest Guidelines (2000):
  • Not followed—no arrest registers, no medical checks, no access to families or advocates, no transparency
• International Law:
  • ICCPR, UDHR, and customary international law explicitly prohibit arbitrary detention, expulsion without due process, and pushbacks—particularly under the principle of non-refoulement

CJP warns that these acts not only violate India’s international legal obligations but may amount to collective punishment and ethnic profiling—practices wholly antithetical to a constitutional democracy.

Justice denied: Non-exhaustion of legal remedies

A central legal concern raised is that many individuals had not exhausted judicial remedies. Some, like Khairul Islam, had active cases in the Supreme Court. Others were in the process of securing permanent bail or challenging ex-parte FT orders.

By detaining and disappearing them before legal processes concluded, the State effectively:

• Short-circuited the rule of law
• Undermined court jurisdiction
• Violated natural justice

This, CJP argues, is not just “procedural impropriety” but an act of executive overreach and constitutional breakdown.

Breach of Supreme Court directives in Rajubala Das

CJP points to the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in Rajubala Das v. Union of India, which directed strict compliance with legal procedures before deportation—such as:

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

The memorandum demands that NHRC urgently verify whether these formalities were observed in any of the 145+ suspected pushbacks. If not, the Assam government may be in contempt of court, and liable for gross human rights violations.

CJP’s prayers: Urgent action, transparency, and accountability

CJP has called on the NHRC to:

1. Demand full disclosure within 72 hours from the Assam government and Ministry of Home Affairs, including:
   • Names and details of all detainees, released persons, and those missing
   • Legal basis and authority under which arrests were made
   • Detention orders, FT case numbers, and status of deportation procedures
2. Constitute a fact-finding committee to visit Matia Detention Centre and affected villages, record testimonies, and report publicly within 10 days
3. Issue binding guidelines against arbitrary detentions and mass expulsions
4. Initiate legal and disciplinary action against officers responsible
5. Restore liberty to all unlawfully detained individuals
6. Create a real-time detainee tracking system and helpline

The memorandum closes with a stirring reminder: The Constitution does not allow governments to extinguish liberty in silence, nor abandon citizens to exile without due process. If confirmed, these disappearances and pushbacks mark a turning point not only for Assam but for Indian democracy itself.

CJP’s urgent appeal is as much a legal petition as it is a moral alarm bell. It demands that India’s institutions act now—firmly and transparently—to restore faith in the rule of law before irreparable damage is done.

The complete memorandum may be read below.

Related:

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

Supreme Court and the Rofiqul Hoque Judgment: Evolving jurisprudence on documentary evidence in Assam citizenship cases

From Detention to Deportation: The mass deportations and detention crisis at Assam’s Matia centre

Indian again! Matleb Ali’s fight to prove Indian identity ends with CJP’s intervention

The post Vanished Without a Trace: CJP writes to NHRC detailing Assam’s secret detentions and illegal pushbacks appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Be it Doyjan Bi, resident of Madhusailamari Part II village in Dhubri district, released on bail from the Kokrajhar Detention camp in May 2021, Abdul Shaikh, a riot survivor from the 1980s, resident of Satibargaon village, Chirang district released on bail in 2021, Mojibur Shaikh a daily wage earner earlier detained while he still battled for his citizenship rights in the Goalpara detention camp from where he was thereafter released on bail in 2023, Shamsul Ali, resident of Village No. 2 Goraimari, Chirang district who was released from the Goalpara detention camp in February 2020, all four are among the reported 145 unlawfully pushed out of India into No Man’s land are Indian citizens engaged in an ongoing battle for their citizenship rights. Then there is the fifth case on which there is available information, that of Khairul Islam, a retired 54-year old government school teacher from Morigaon district whose case is still pending in the Supreme Court of India (last hearing was in December 2024). All five are victims of the same arbitrary actions of the Assam police without any due process or notice.

Families of those unlawfully detained waiting for answers outside Matia Detention Centre

Despite desperate efforts by families, activists and advocates on the ground over the past few days, whereabouts of these five persons and close to a total of 145 persons are still unknown with clear indicators that they have been unlawfully “pushed” over the Indian border towards Bangladesh where they are vulnerable to firings from the Bangladesh forces or even the Indian Border Security Force (BSF). The area called ‘no man’s land’ between the Indian border along Assam and Bangladesh renders persons pushed there vulnerable to violence of multiple kinds. Firing both by the Border Guard Bangladesh (BGD) and Border Security Force (BSF) India, makes unarmed helpless persons vulnerable.

From the night of Friday 23, Saturday 24, Sunday May 25 and Monday, May 26, bus-loads of Assam police, swooped down on residents in all 33 districts of Assam – from the Barak Valley, Central Assam, Lower Assam and North Assam—and forcibly rounded up, without notice or legal reasoning close to 300 persons, women and men. To date, no details of their whereabouts were made available to family or advocates despite efforts made at district police stations and even the Matia Detention Centre, violating settled principles of law, Constitution and judicial directives. Information meticulously collected by the CJP’s ground level team over the past few days, indicates that after the first detentions, about 150 persons were thereafter released. Unconfirmed sources further told us that as many as 145 persons (each one of them, Indians, and still battling for restoration of their citizenship rights in Indian Courts and Tribunals) have been pushed across the border where they are vulnerable to attacks in the no man’s land between India and Bangladesh. These actions have been taken without following any due process and no information being given to their families or advocates.

Matia Detention Centre: Tuesday May 27

For over six hours on Tuesday, May 27, CJP’s team members tried unsuccessfully to get information on all the detainees. Matters got tense after agitated and anxious family members, present outside the Detention Centre, many of whom had brought food and clothing for their loved ones, were arrogantly thwarted by authorities. Despite the Centre being under the jurisdiction of the Jailor, the Jailor was not allowed to meet the family members and activists with the Assam Border police taking full control of the Centre.

CJP’s Team reached the Matia Detention Centre early on Tuesday after close monitoring and visits to District level police stations and the Border Branch on Monday. When the team reached the main the gate of detention centre, a crowd of agitated family members of those detained was desperately trying to speak with the police at the gate. They received no satisfactory answers. They were all frustrated. Having travelled long distances from various districts of Upper Assam to Lower Assam, they had brought food, clothes and money to give their dear ones detained by police. They were met with a stone wall of non-communication, standing in the scorching sun, hopeless. Anxiously they awaited some reassurance that their family members were safe.

Family members of the people unlawfully detained stand outside Matia Detention Centre

Soon it became clear that the police had been instructed to give no information at all. The CJP team had through its legal researchers prepared a detailed memorandum which it handed over to the authorities. This outlined details of the violations of the law on arrest, detention, judicial directives that were taking place. After first accepting it the authorities declined to take a copy or even give an acknowledgement. A copy of this may be read here.

Repeated efforts were made by us to present judgements and judicial precedents to the authorities, the police at the gate but they were adamant in their refusal to discuss the niceties of the law. The police officials at the gate were in constant touch with their “superiors” through phone calls, with the chain of command going up to the Additional Deputy Commissioner. But there was no response. When Nanda Ghosh, the state in charge, CJP team insisted on speaking to the Jailor, the police became aggressive, physically pushing the team back. The adamant refusal to entertain an advocates/citizen’s memorandum reveals a new turn in the way authorities deal with the Indian people, a scant respect for the law, Constitution and procedure. Finally they said that the whereabouts would be given after seven days!

The plight of family members was insufferable: an aged mother, a wife with a seven-month old baby, a younger brother, aged father, all anxious about their near and dear ones. CJP’s team offered them refreshments. Thereafter, moving to a nearby shady spot, for further inquiries and discussions amongst themselves, they also found local reporters there also making inquiries. Given that distances in Assam are arduous and the Matia Detention Centre remote, as late as 5 p.m. in the evening the team left taking some of the family of the victims of this unlawful detention along. Doyjan bi’s husband who also came with the hope to give her some dry food and two garments, had also brought her some money. But he returned to Goalpara with the team, disheartened. The tiny hope of Assam’s marginalised to share an evening meal with their loved ones together was cruelly snatched away by the Assam government in the dead of the night.

Outside Matia Detention Centre; food, clothes brought by family members for those unlawfully detained

By mid-afternoon on May 27, the Border Security Force (BSF) released a press note claiming actions against attempts at infiltration. “In a significant operation on the morning of 27th May, 2025, Border Security Force successfully thwarted an infiltration attempt by a large group of Bangladeshi nationals from the Indo-Bangladesh Boundary in South Salmara Mankachar district, Assam. 2. In the early hours of May 27, 2025, vigilant BSF troops deployed at Indo-Bangladesh International Border in district South Salamara Mankachar, Assam observed suspicious movement of Bangladesh nationals approaching towards International Boundary from the Bangladesh side with intention to cross into Indian Territory.” The entire text of the BSF press release may be read here.

So far we have confirmed details of unlawful action on at least six victims, though reports from villages and agitated families indicate that at least 145 persons are still untraceable after this “combing operation” that started on Saturday night. Reportedly, the Assam Border Police have arrived at homes of persons who are “Declared Foreigners” by Assam’s controversial Foreigner’s Tribunals (FTs), those who have been released on bail, arrested them and taken them back to the police station. After these arbitrary acts, no information on those detained/arrested, their wellbeing or whereabouts was passed or shared with anyone, including their family members, who had been waiting in distress outside police stations all night. There are also unconfirmed digital media reports that the DGP of Assam, Harmeet Singh has issued instructions to police stations in the state to prepare a list of “suspected citizens” under their jurisdiction.

As soon as the CJP team got distress calls about this arbitrary action by the police, our team started to reach out to affected communities, those battling the restoration of citizenship cases in courts and also those detainees released on bail to ensure they are aware of the dangers that await them. Repeated and desperate attempts by Doyjan’s husband to get information on her well-being and whereabouts from the police from 6 p.m. on Sunday night have been unsuccessful. The same is true of the others, Abdul Shaikh, a riot survivor whose home was burnt down during ethnic clashes in the state, Mojibur Sheikh and Shamsul Ali all of whom were released on bail with the assistance of the CJP team. Details of these may be read here, here, here and here.

Meanwhile, Khairul Islam, a 54 year old retired school teacher, alleged in a video interview (see below) also reported by Scroll.in, that he was among 14 people “pushed” into Bangladesh by India’s Border Security Force on Tuesday morning, May 27. (Since the happenings reportedly happened in the dark of the night, observers say that the darkness prompted the cross fire between the BSF and the Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB).

English Translation below:

Assalamualaikum, my name is Md. Khairul Islam. I’m a primary teacher and a resident of Assam, a state in India. Specifically, I live in Khandapukuri village under Mikirbhita police station and post office in Morigaon district, Assam. The Mikirbhita border police brought me to the Matia Detention Camp in Goalpara on 23rd May.
Yesterday, they brought me here right before Asar namaz and I got beaten up badly for not wanting to come. They hit my hands and other parts of my body and it really hurt. I repeatedly told them thousands time that I’m a teacher, begging them to show some respect to a teacher, but they didn’t listen. Instead, they kicked me and roughly pushed me into the car.
They tied my hands behind my back like a thief, forced me into the vehicle with others, and we arrived here around 4 am, just as the Fajar namaz was sounding. Our group of 14 people passed the border line by BSF around 4 a.m.
What is the name of your school?
I work in Thengkhali Khandapukhuri LP School.
Where did they pick you up from – the border or somewhere in the city?
They picked me up from my home and then put me in the camp.
Is your home near border?
No, far from the border.
How long have you been living in India?
My parents were born in India, even before India gained independence. We’re residents of India.
What is the name of your school?
The name of my school is Thengkhali Khandapukhuri LP School.
What did they tell you when they sent you over to this side?
We can’t say anything, we’re afraid of the guns. We’re scared they’ll shoot us. Lastly me, they tied my hands. I thought I wouldn’t be able to cross it, that they’d kill me. I prayed a lot.
Do you have any ID card?
No, they kept them all. They kept them all in the camp. I bought 8,000 rupees with me for food and my luggage they kept everything.
Did your family know everything?
My family might not know anything about it yet, maybe they’ll know it if someone informs them.

The leadership of All Assam Students Union (AASU), Assam Jatiya Yuva Chatra Parishad (AJYCP), and Lachit Sena has strongly supported the government’s inhumane, undemocratic, and unconstitutional actions during this humanitarian crisis.

However, independent voices like Arindam Dev, Faruk Laskar and Mrinal Kanti Shome who are part of the Forum For Social Harmony and Asom Majouri Sramik Union have strongly and publicly condemned this inhuman sweep operation by the present Assam government. The state unit of the CPI (M) has also condemned these unlawful actions of the authorities.

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

Meanwhile, an advocate with the Indian National Congress (INC), Aman Wadud has approached the National Human Rights Commission yesterday, Tuesday May 27, in an Urgent Complaint wherein he requested the NHRC to:

1. Take suo motu cognizance of the arbitrary re-arrest and detention of Indian citizens and previously released declared foreigners in Assam as of 23.05.2025.
2. Issue urgent notices to the Chief Secretary, Government of Assam, and Director General of Police, Assam, seeking a status report on the basis of re-arrest, list of detainees, and legal justification
3. Intervene to prevent forced deportation, without due process and judicial oversight.
4. Direct the Government of Assam to immediately release those re-arrested individuals who have not violated any conditions of their earlier release and restore their liberty.
5. Recommend formulation of a humane and transparent policy on dealing with cases of disputed citizenship, in compliance with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
6. Recommend compensation and rehabilitation for individuals unlawfully detained for years and again subjected to re-arrest without cause.

The copy of this complaint may be read here.

Related:

Indian again! Matleb Ali’s fight to prove Indian identity ends with CJP’s intervention

From Detention to Deportation: The mass deportations and detention crisis at Assam’s Matia centre

Restoring Citizenship, Rebuilding Lives: CJP continues its journey in Assam

“Anti-conversion laws being weaponised”: CJP seeks interim relief against misuse of anti-conversion laws

The post Assam Border Police cracks down on residents battling citizenship rights without due process, pushes 145 locals over the border? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

With this declaration, Matleb has cleared his name of the “foreigner” tag — a stigma that haunted him for decades despite overwhelming documentary evidence of his Indian lineage. Matleb’s struggle came to an end when the Foreigners Tribunal in Assam formally declared him an Indian on May 17, 2025 — a moment made possible by the unwavering support of Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP).

Matleb Ali stands outside his home holding the order passed by the Foreigners Tribunal (Dhubri)

This is more than just a legal victory — it’s a testament to resilience, community solidarity, and the courage to stand up against a system that too often fails the most vulnerable.

The Origin of the Case: A 1998 reference

Matleb Ali, also recorded in official documents as Matleb Ali or Motleb Ali, was born in 1981 in the remote village of Ramraikuti Part I in Assam’s Dhubri district, about 251 kilometres from Guwahati. The village, perched on India’s border with Bangladesh, has long been home to his family — generation after generation.

He completed his matriculation from Agomani Higher Secondary School, an institution established shortly after India’s independence. His father, Kasem Ali, was a lifelong resident of Ramraikuti, owning land there as early as 1962. His grandparents, Sonaullah Sk and Kosimon Bewa, were registered voters in the 1966 electoral rolls — clear, continuous proof of Indian lineage.

Yet in 1998, the unthinkable happened: a reference was made against Matleb, branding him a suspected foreigner. Despite having all the required documents, he was forced into a legal battle to prove his very identity — a fate shared by thousands of marginalized residents in Assam, particularly those living near the border.

The ordeal began when the Superintendent of Police (Border), Dhubri, acting on a report from the Electoral Registration Officer of the 25 No. Golakganj Legislative Assembly Constituency, filed a reference case against Matleb Ali. His name was listed in the 1997 draft electoral roll for his village Ramraikuti Part-I, but doubts were raised about his citizenship during house-to-house enumeration (Jan–Apr 1997). The matter was first referred to the IM(D)T Tribunal, later transferred to Foreigners Tribunal No. 2, and finally to the 10^th Foreigners Tribunal.

Despite being born and raised in India, Matleb was forced to prove he wasn’t an illegal migrant — a fate that disproportionately affects many poor, marginalised people in Assam, particularly in border districts like Dhubri.

Eid turned to despair

In mid-2023, just a day before Eid, Matleb’s world turned upside down. While he was working in Guwahati to earn enough to celebrate the festival with his family — his wife, two children, and elderly mother — police officers in plain clothes came to his home in Ramraikuti and handed a notice to his wife. The document summoned him before the Foreigners Tribunal.

His young daughter handed over the notice when he returned home. The joy of Eid evaporated as the devastating contents of the letter became clear. “It was as if all the light had gone out of our lives,” his wife later recalled while speaking to CJP Assam team.

Matleb knew the road ahead would be difficult. Fighting a tribunal case required time, money, and legal knowledge — resources he did not have. If he chased documents and attended hearings, his family would go hungry. If he chose to work, he would miss court dates and lose the case.

CJP steps in, hope rekindled

In desperation, Matleb turned to a trusted neighbour, who introduced him to Moon Kazi, a community volunteer with Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP). From that moment on, the tide began to turn.

CJP’s District Volunteer Motivator (DVM) for Dhubri, Habibul Bepari, quickly visited the family. After reviewing the documents, he escalated the case to Nanda Ghosh, CJP’s Assam State In-charge, and Advocate Ishkander Azad, a member of CJP’s legal team in the district.

CJP Assam Team outside the Foreigners Tribunal Court in Dhubri

The family, mentally and emotionally exhausted, found renewed hope. “Without CJP, I could never have fought this alone,” said Matleb, his voice filled with emotion after receiving the order declaring his citizenship.

CJP took over the case with full dedication — collecting documents, filing applications, visiting government offices, and providing legal representation. This allowed Matleb to remain home and earn a living while the organization fought the case on his behalf.

Documents provided in the Tribunal to establish Matleb’s identity and lineage

The following documents were provided to the Tribunal in order to establish the Indian identity of Matleb:

• HSLC Admit Card (Ext-A) – Verified as genuine by SEBA, establishing both his date of birth and parentage.
• School Certificate (Ext-B) – Issued by Agomani School, confirming his education and village of residence.
• Copy of shifting certificate issued by the Secretary, Satrasal Gaon Panchayat

His family tree was also established:

• Grandparents: Sonaullah Sk and Kosimon Bewa — Voter records from 1966, 1970, 1977, and 1985 show them living in Ramraikuti.
• Father: Kasem Ali — Listed as a voter in 1977.
• Mother: Moslema Bewa — Listed as a voter from 1979 onward, including with Matleb in the 1997 and 2008 rolls.

In addition to electoral records, land deeds were also provided:

• Matleb’s father owned land since 1962, as per Khatian No. 64 (Ext-E), backed by the original land records and verified through the Land Records Officer’s testimony (DW-3).
• Matleb himself co-owns land with his family in Ramraikuti, as shown by Periodic Kheraj Patta (Ext-M).

Additionally, Matleb’s own name consistently appears in voter rolls from 1997, 2008, and 2023, and he holds an Elector Photo Identity Card (Ext-L) issued in 2013.

The Legal Proceedings: Evidence vs suspicion

When the matter finally came before the tribunal, Advocate Ishkander Azad presented a compelling argument. He highlighted Matleb’s strong documentary evidence — including voter records of three generations, land documents, and school certificates. Azad also emphasized the hardship Matleb faced in commuting from distant work locations just to attend hearings, often at great financial and emotional cost.

Notably, the Referral Authority presented no witnesses or documentary evidence. In contrast, Matleb submitted:

• 13 documents (Exts A to M), including educational records, land documents, and voter lists from 1966 to 2023.
• Oral evidence from:
  • Himself (DW-1)
  • His mother, Moslema Bewa (DW-2), who fully corroborated his statements
  • A Land Records official (DW-3), who authenticated historical land ownership

The tribunal accepted the entire chain of documentary and oral evidence as genuine and trustworthy.

The Order: “He is Indian”!

After considering the evidence, Tribunal Member Rafiqul Islam delivered a clear verdict:

“From the evidence on record and finding no rebuttal evidence, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the opposite party and documents exhibited by the opposite party in support of his testimony… Moreover, though the State cross examined both DW-1 and DW-2, the State could not demolish the evidences that grandparents of opposite party were not citizens of India and therefore the opposite party cannot be termed as a foreigner as suspected by the referral authority.” (Para 11)

He ordered that:

• The lineage from Indian grandparents, consistent voter records, land ownership, and educational credentials are sufficient to establish citizenship.
• There was no rebuttal evidence from the state to challenge the authenticity of any claims or documents.
• Matleb was born in India to Indian parents residing in Assam, and therefore qualifies as a citizen of India by birth under Indian law.

The tribunal answered the reference in the negative, officially declaring Matleb Ali not a foreigner.

A mother’s blessing, a daughter’s celebration

The order came just days after another joyful event in the family: Matleb’s daughter passed her matriculation examination. It was a moment of double celebration in the Ali household.

His mother, Moslema Bewa, broke down in tears of relief and gratitude. She showered blessings on the CJP team:

“Allah tomak bhalé rakhuk, āro jāté mānsher sahāy korbār pān! (May Allah keep you safe and grant you the strength to help many more!)”

She insisted the team stay for a meal, a simple but heartfelt gesture from a family who had just come out of darkness into light. Now, her son stood vindicated — not a foreigner, but a citizen, a father, and a man free to dream again.

Matleb’s story is not an exception — it is a window into the lives of countless Indians caught in the storm of suspicion and statelessness. His case underscores how easily the poor can be branded as outsiders in their own land — and how community-led legal action can restore rights, dignity, and hope.

CJP Team Assam with Matleb Ali, outside his home

Thanks to the determined efforts of CJP, Matleb Ali’s name has been cleared. He is no longer just a “case” — he is a citizen of India.

The complete order may be read below.

Related:

From Detention to Deportation: The mass deportations and detention crisis at Assam’s Matia centre

Restoring Citizenship, Rebuilding Lives: CJP continues its journey in Assam

“Anti-conversion laws being weaponised”: CJP seeks interim relief against misuse of anti-conversion laws

The post Matleb Ali declared Indian by Tribunal, ending a long fight to prove his identity appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Taking this citizens’ monitoring several steps further, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) has filed complaints against six mainstream Indian news channels, Aaj Tak, ABP News, Times Now Navbharat, NDTV, India TV, and News18 this week. The complaints detail three key instances of misinformation. Five channels – Aaj Tak, ABP News, Times Now Navbharat, NDTV, and India TV – broadcasted a four-year-old video of Israel’s Iron Dome, falsely presenting it as recent footage of Indian air defence systems in Jaisalmer. These channels claimed the footage showed India thwarting Pakistani aerial threats.

Separately, News18 falsely identified Maulana Qari Mohammad Iqbal, an Indian religious scholar and educator, as a Pakistani terrorist killed in an Indian airstrike. News18’s report, titled “India’s air strike Pakistan: Operation Sindoor,” claimed Iqbal was a top Lashkar-e-Taiba commander. CJP’s complaint iterated that Iqbal was not a terrorist, claims that the unfortunate teacher’s family had stated on social media and even the Poonch police had clarified: Maulana Iqbal had died in cross-border shelling while adding relevant evidence in its complaint against the channels for its inaccurate broadcast.

Additionally, Aaj Tak broadcasted old footage of Israeli airstrikes in Gaza, falsely claiming it showed Indian attacks on Pakistan during “Operation Sindoor”. CJP’s complaints highlight serious ethical breaches, including the use of misleading visuals, sensationalist commentary, and theatrical framing to manipulate public perception. CJP is demanding on-air corrections, public apologies, and the removal of the misleading content.

Fake War Footage: Old Israeli defence videos masqueraded as airstrikes in Jaisalmer

During a critical moment of heightened tensions between India and Pakistan in May 2025, multiple mainstream Indian news channels — including Aaj Tak, ABP News, Times Now Navbharat, NDTV, and India TV — broadcasted a four-year-old video showing Israel’s Iron Dome air defence system. These visuals were falsely presented as recent, exclusive footage of Indian air defence systems thwarting Pakistani aerial threats in Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

News channels misrepresent outdated foreign footage as breaking war coverage

Aaj Tak

On May 14, CJP filed a complaint with Aaj Tak regarding a misrepresented broadcast, as on May 9, Aaj Tak aired a show hosted by senior anchor Anjana Om Kashyap under the sensational title, “पाकिस्तान पर भारत पर भारत का चौतरफा हमला, Lahore-Karachi में भारी नुक़सान [India’s All-Around Attack on Pakistan, Heavy Losses in Lahore-Karachi].” Kashyap claimed the visuals depicted a Pakistani drone attack being repelled in Jaisalmer. The same footage was shown by anchor Shweta Singh, again framed as evidence of India’s successful defence.

Archived combat footage passed off as real-time strikes during ‘Operation Sindoor’: Aaj Tak uses Israeli airstrike footage to claim Indian attacks on Pakistan

Similarly, as reports of India’s military strikes under “Operation Sindoor” on May 7, 2025, began to surface, Aaj Tak broadcast visuals that allegedly showed seven Indian missiles being launched, claiming they were live visuals from Bahawalpur, Pakistan — a hub of terrorist activity. The footage was shared both on air and on social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter), captioned “ऑपरेशन सिंदूर | ऐसे ध्वस्त हुआ जैश का आतंकी अड्डा [Operation Sindoor | How the Jaish Terrorist Base Was Destroyed].”

ऑपरेशन सिंदूर | ऐसे ध्वस्त हुआ जैश का आतंकी अड्डा #OperationSindoor #Pakistan #IndianArmy #IndianAirforce #IndiaStrikesTerroristan #PahalgamTerrorAttack | @anjanaomkashyap pic.twitter.com/DxwLnhmDUr

— AajTak (@aajtak) May 7, 2025

However, reverse image searches revealed that these visuals were not recent, nor were they connected to any Indian military action. Instead, they were taken from a report by Sputnik Armenia published on October 13, 2023, depicting Israeli airstrikes in Gaza. The original footage was also corroborated by the Israeli Air Force’s own records and shared on their official Facebook page.

Fact-checkers debunk false Media claims

Further confirmation came from multiple sources, including Al Mayadeen and BBC journalist Shayan Sardarizadeh, CJP’s complaint described this as not merely an error but a calculated attempt to dramatise the news cycle.  The same video resurfaced a few days later and was used by the media outlet Al Mayadeen in their video report on bombings in Gaza on October 23, 2023.

In doing so, the channel undermined public trust, misinformed citizens about the reality of ongoing military operations, and potentially destabilised diplomatic efforts through the spread of inflammatory, inaccurate content.

CJP in its complaint to Aaj Tak, also mentioned other social media accounts had also shared the identical video on October 13, 2023. Links to these X posts are available:

Heavy Israeli airstrikes continued in the Gaza Strip tonight. pic.twitter.com/nVG7x0qVv1

— Status-6 (Military & Conflict News) (BlueSky too) (@Archer83Able) October 12, 2023

Israel is currently carrying out a MASSIVE airstrike on Gaza. pic.twitter.com/yqi0zBzfue

— Censored Men (@CensoredMen) October 12, 2023

#IsraelPalestineConflict Israel Forces attack Gaza.https://t.co/kt7X1rLBKP #Israel #IsraelFightsBack #Gaza #GazaUnderAttack #Hamas_is_ISIS #Hamas #HamasMassacre #HamasTerrorism #HamasISIS #Palestine #PalestineUnderAttack #palastine #WestBank pic.twitter.com/6dMMGEXTxA

— People’s Eye (@eye_peoples) October 13, 2023

Gaza |

Intense bombings are now striking Gaza, causing significant tremors. In the past two hours alone, Israeli warplanes have claimed the lives of 40 Palestinians. pic.twitter.com/8PPTRry05k

— Younis Tirawi | يونس (@ytirawi) October 12, 2023

These broadcasts, as outlined in the CJP’s complaint to above channels, reflect systemic problems in how certain mainstream media outlets handle news during national crises. From falsifying battlefield footage to wrongfully branding civilians as terrorists, and recycling old foreign war clips as current Indian military action, the channels prioritised sensationalism over accuracy.

The complaint may be read here:

ABP News

On May 15, 2025, ABP News also faced CJP’s complaint with its May 8, 2025 bulletin titled “India Pakistan War Update: श्रीनगर और लुधियाना में ब्लैक आउट.” Through the broadcast, Anchor Chitra Tripathi and a field reporter stated unequivocally that a Pakistani drone strike had just been neutralised in Jaisalmer using Indian defence systems. ABP presented them with no disclaimers, context, or source attribution.

The channel presented the visuals, which bore a striking resemblance to Israel’s Iron Dome air defence system in action, as exclusive footage originating from Jaisalmer and depicting events that had occurred “a short while ago.” This purported visual evidence was displayed throughout a substantial portion of the broadcast, from the 00:01 to the 05:29 timestamp. Adding to the gravity of the claim, the anchor, Chitra Tripathi, explicitly stated that a “drone attack happened in Jaisalmer.”

Furthermore, the reporting included a correspondent who affirmed that “the Indian missiles/counter drone system destroyed the drone attack” [Time Stamp: 02:30 – 03:30]. By presenting unverified and, as later revealed, outdated footage as a real-time depiction of a critical security event in a sensitive border region, ABP News engaged in a serious act of misrepresentation and disseminated potentially inflammatory misinformation to its viewers. This broadcast had the potential to significantly shape public perception during a period of heightened national anxiety, CJP’s complaint mentioned

CJP mentioned in its complaint that “Despite this, ABP News aired the video as breaking and exclusive news footage, implicitly suggesting to viewers that Indian air defence forces had successfully repelled an actual Pakistani air attack. No disclaimers, source identification, or verification notes were presented either during or after the broadcast. The footage was shared with a tone of real-time urgency, further misleading the public into believing that an active military escalation was underway.”

The complaint may be read here:

Times Now Navbharat

On May 15, CJP filed a complaint with Times Now Navbharat for its May 9 broadcast, titled “#BharatPAKWarBREAKING: भारत-पाकिस्तान युद्ध पर अमेरिका का बयान- ‘हम भारत को नहीं रोक सकते’ [U.S. statement on the India-Pakistan war: ‘We cannot stop India].” CJP mentioned that the broadcast of India TV amplified similar claims, airing the same misleading visuals on May 9 under the tag “#BharatPAKWarBREAKING.” The channel claimed Pakistani strikes had been intercepted in Jaisalmer, echoing the others’ false narratives.

The complaint may be read here:

NDTV

On May 15, CJP filed a complaint with NDTV for its May 8 broadcast nearly identical visuals under the headline “India-Pakistan Tension: पाकिस्तान के खिलाफ भारत का जवाबी हमला शुरू.” Again, the footage was presented without context, implying a real-time military development.

The complaint may be read here:

India TV

On May 16, CJP filed a complaint with India TV over the broadcast of inaccurate and misleading visuals. CJP finds that the channel on May 9 falsely claimed that Pakistani drones were shot down in Ramgarh, Jaisalmer. while the channel did not explicitly state that the video footage was from Ramgarh, Jaisalmer, it was presented alongside a report alleging that Pakistani drones had been intercepted in the area— without any disclaimer or clarification.

This created a misleading impression that the visuals were authentic, recent, and directly related to the reported incident, particularly within the context of escalating India-Pakistan tensions. The lack of any on-screen disclaimer or contextual clarification further supported this illusion, making it appear as though viewers were witnessing real-time footage of Indian forces responding to a Pakistani attack.

Such tactics exploit the emotive power of visuals for sensational effect, prioritising ratings over responsibility. In a volatile geopolitical climate, this kind of reporting is not only ethically indefensible but socially dangerous. It undermines public trust in the media, distorts the reality of conflict, and risks escalating tensions based on manufactured impressions.

The complaint may be read here:

CJP flags intentional misinformation and potential public harm and panic

In its complaints to the channels, CJP detailed how the broadcasts misinformed and misled viewers by using dramatic, outdated footage to fabricate a false narrative of live military engagement. CJP asserted that this went beyond mere editorial oversight, constituting a serious ethical breach. The combination of misleading visuals, sensationalist commentary, and theatrical framing served to manipulate public perception and exploit viewers’ emotions amid a period of real geopolitical tension.

Original video was uploaded to YouTube channel named @NSFchannel on May 11, 2021

CJP in its complaint against six mainstream news channels, cited an investigation by independent fact-checking organisation Alt News, titled “Aaj Tak, NDTV, Times Now, News18 & others ran 4-yr-old video as aerial fight over Jaisalmer.“ The fact-check revealed that the video aired by these channels as supposed footage of India’s air defence system intercepting Pakistani aerial threats was originally uploaded to YouTube on May 11, 2021, by a channel named NSF Channel.

The original caption clearly identified the visuals as showing Israel’s Iron Dome in action. Despite this information being publicly available for years, the news channels misleadingly presented the clip during heightened India-Pakistan tensions in May 2025, risking public panic, misinformation, and further hostility.

While Alt News could not independently confirm that the footage showed the Iron Dome specifically, it conclusively established that the video was at least four years old and entirely unrelated to the 2025 conflict, making its use by the news channels a serious breach of journalistic integrity.

Misidentifying an Indian educator as a Pakistani terrorist: a dangerous act of defamation: News18 insensitively labels civilian death as terror elimination

On May 14 (2025), CJP also sent a formal complaint to News 18, as on May 7, 2025, News18 aired a segment titled “India’s air strike Pakistan: Operation Sindoor में मारा गया आतंकी Mohammad Iqbal |India Pak War,” claiming that a top Lashkar-e-Taiba commander named Mohammad Iqbal had been killed in an Indian airstrike. This “most-wanted terrorist,” the report alleged, had been neutralised during “Operation Sindoor.”

Link for the contentious programme- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swmMklh41No

CJP’s submission in its complaint reiterated that in reality, Maulana Qari Mohammad Iqbal was not a terrorist but a religious scholar and educator from Poonch, Jammu & Kashmir. He taught at Jamia Zia-ul-Uloom and had no ties to any militant organisation. He tragically lost his life in cross-border shelling — not during an anti-terror operation — contrary to what several media outlets falsely reported.

According to the CJP complaint, independent fact-checks and official confirmations, including from the district police, have unequivocally established that he had no links to militancy. Media platforms misappropriated his identity, even using an image originally posted in a condolence message by Jamia’s deputy administrator, Mr. Sayeed Ahmed Habib. His grieving family, including brother-in-law Ishaq Khayan and brother Qari Mohammad Farookh, have condemned the coverage as defamatory and deeply distressing.

In its complaints, CJP cited the Alt News fact-check published on May 10, 2025, titled “His name was Qari Mohammad Iqbal. He was not a terrorist.” In response to the misinformation, CJP has added the case to its complaint against the circulation of fake news and communal profiling by certain media houses.

Facts vs Fabrication: Media’s reckless misreporting exposed

CJP’s complaint to channels included findings from various independent fact-checkers and official confirmations that debunked News18’s claim. Local police authorities, his family, and his colleagues confirmed that Qari Iqbal was not involved in any unlawful activities. The image used by the channel was originally part of a condolence message from a colleague, Sayeed Ahmed Habib.

In an official statement, Jamia Zia Ul Uloom, the institution where Iqbal worked, called the portrayal “shameful” and “deeply regrettable.” They demanded a public apology from the channels that misreported the story and warned of legal action if no corrective steps were taken.

Family demands strict action against those spreading misinformation

Qari Mohammad Iqbal’s family has demanded strict action against those spreading misinformation.

“We were already in mourning, and now this false narrative has added to our pain. Sections of the ‘Godi media’ are falsely labeling him as a Pakistani terrorist, which is absolutely baseless. We strongly condemn this defamation and appeal to the District Collector (DC Saab) to take immediate and appropriate action,” the family stated.

Qari Iqbal Mohammad’s family demands action against ‘Godi media’ for falsely labelling him a Pakistani terrorist.

They claimed that he was killed in Indian airstrikes in Pakistan.

Fact: He was killed in Pakistani shelling in Poonch. pic.twitter.com/cXpD2RYXaQ

— Alishan Jafri (@alishan_jafri) May 8, 2025

Maulana Mohd Iqbal had no terror links: district Poonch police

In response to misinformation circulating on social media and certain digital platforms, Poonch Police, through its official X handle, issued a clear and firm statement addressing the matter.

“Poonch Police refutes fake news circulating about the death of Maulana Mohd Iqbal in cross-border shelling. He had no terror links. Misreporting causes panic and legal action will follow against those spreading misinformation,” the post read.

Poonch Police refutes fake news circulating about the death of Maulana Mohd Iqbal in cross-border shelling. He had no terror links. Misreporting causes panic and Legal action will follow against those spreading misinformation. @JmuKmrPolice @ZPHQJammu @digrprange

— DISTRICT POLICE POONCH (@Poonch_Police) May 8, 2025

The clarification comes amid a surge in unverified reports alleging that Maulana Mohd Iqbal, a respected local religious figure, was killed in cross-border shelling and had affiliations with terror groups — both claims now officially denied.

The incident reveals a disturbing tendency in segments of the news channels, the urge to capitalise on conflict by rushing to label civilians as enemies. This not only violates journalistic ethics but inflicts real harm on grieving families and distorts the facts on the ground, CJP strongly argued in its complaints

Violations of NBDSA Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards

Violation of Fundamental Principles

The complaints submitted by CJP highlights multiple violations of the NBDSA’s Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards by Aaj Tak, ABP News, NDTV, India TV, Times Now Navbharat, and News18. Citing Section 1 – Fundamental Principles of the Code, the complaints underscore that professional electronic journalists are obligated to act as trustees of public interest, and to “seek the truth and report it fairly with integrity and independence.” This obligation includes ensuring the dissemination of verified and accurate information, enabling the public to form their own opinions based on facts, and being accountable to the citizenry by not misleading them, especially during sensitive national moments.

However, it was found that in the broadcasts aired by the aforementioned channels, a video of unverified origin—purportedly showing a Pakistani air attack foiled in Jaisalmer—was broadcast without authentication. In doing so, the channels compromised accuracy by failing to verify the origin or authenticity of the footage prior to airing, thereby misleading audiences and violating the ethical foundations of journalism meant to serve the public interest.

The complaints noted that this constituted a betrayal of the media’s role as a platform for truthful and balanced information, and described it as a grave dereliction of professional responsibility, particularly during a conflict scenario where misinformation can easily shape public perception, trigger mass fear, or escalate geopolitical tensions.

Breach of Principles of Self-Regulation and National Security

Further, under Section 2 – Principles of Self-Regulation, it was found that the broadcasters violated norms concerning impartiality, objectivity, and neutrality. The complaints emphasised that while 24-hour news channels are expected to operate with speed, accuracy and balance must take precedence. In the May 9, 2025 broadcast, the channels reportedly prioritised sensationalism over verified information. The use of inaccurate and outdated footage as alleged real-time visuals demonstrated a reckless disregard for factual accuracy and ethical broadcasting standards. No clarifications or corrective statements were issued, thereby compounding the breach of accountability.

Additionally, the complaint raised concerns under the guidelines on reporting crime and violence, stating that the channels aired visuals originally depicting Israeli military operations while falsely presenting them as Indian actions.

This misrepresentation glorified violent retaliation and military aggression, and the use of graphic imagery combined with a triumphant tone amounted to glamorisation of cross-border violence, potentially inciting emotional and nationalistic fervour among viewers. The complaints also stated that the portrayal of a foreign missile defence system as an Indian military success misled the public and desensitised audiences to the real dangers of armed conflict by falsely boosting perceptions of India’s defence capabilities.

Moreover, CJP’s complaints cited violations related to national security, noting that the dissemination of false information during an already volatile military situation between India and Pakistan risked endangering operational confidentiality and public safety. By misreporting the scale and location of military operations and falsely broadcasting visuals of active air defence systems, the channels undermined diplomatic efforts and national security interests.

CJP concluded that such actions had the potential to mislead international observers, escalate bilateral tensions, and severely compromise journalistic responsibility in moments of national significance.

Violation of government advisories

This coverage is also in direct violation of multiple advisories issued by government authorities

including the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting:

“Advisory on live/real-time coverage of defence operations (MIB Advisory dated April 25, 2025): All media channels, digital platforms and individuals are advised to refrain from live coverage or real-time reporting of defence operations and movement of security forces. Disclosure of such sensitive or source-based information may jeopardise operational effectiveness.”

The news channels, in their rush to report “military actions,” irresponsibly broadcasted speculative and unverified visuals during prime-time programming, falsely portraying old footage from a different conflict zone as evidence of India’s military strikes over Pakistan’s drone. This not only misled the public but also potentially compromised operational and national security.

Advisory to counter disinformation during sensitive times

CJP stated that, through social media platforms, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting had urged citizens to, in sensitive times like these, be wary of disinformation being spread on social media. The advisory emphasised verifying any piece of news, image, or video before sharing or forwarding.

The broadcast in question blatantly disregarded this advisory by airing unverified and repurposed footage — originally the Iron Dome from 2021 — and falsely presenting as authentic visuals from an ongoing India-Pakistan conflict. This constitutes a serious breach of ethical responsibility, especially during heightened national tension.

In sensitive times like these, it is necessary to be wary of disinformation being spread on social media.

Always verify any piece of news, image, or video before you forward.

If you come across suspicious or misleading content, report it to @PIBFactCheck #FactCheck… pic.twitter.com/UBNCdvy5gB

— Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (@MIB_India) May 9, 2025

CJP highlights potential consequences of irresponsible coverage

The recent use of misleading and outdated footage by major news channels such as AAJ Tak, India TV, Times Now Navbharat, NDTV, ABP News, and News18 constitutes a serious violation of journalistic ethics and regulatory standards. These channels have relied on three key forms of misinformation: the airing of old Israeli defence videos passed off as Indian airstrikes, the wrongful identification of an Indian educator as a Pakistani terrorist, and the misrepresentation of archived combat footage as real-time military operations during ‘Operation Sindoor’. These missteps form the basis of six core complaints:

1.  Fake War Footage: The channels aired outdated Israeli airstrike and iron dome videos, misidentifying them as Indian airstrikes in Jaisalmer, misleading the public during a time of heightened tensions between India and Pakistan.
2.  Dangerous Defamation: An Indian educator was falsely labelled as a Pakistani terrorist, a gross act of defamation that puts innocent lives at risk.
3.  Erroneous Terrorism Reporting: News 18 wrongly portrayed civilian deaths as the elimination of terrorists, perpetuating dangerous narratives and misinformation.

This type of misreporting is deeply concerning, as it not only escalates public panic but also influences national sentiment with falsehoods, contributing to a climate of fear and hostility. Senior journalists, who are typically trusted by the public for accurate reporting, further amplify the damage by failing to properly verify the footage. Basic checks, such as reverse image searches, could have easily identified the true origins of the material, but these were overlooked.

CJP asserted that, the consequences of such reckless coverage are severe. These actions risk destabilising regional diplomatic relations, undermine public trust in the media, and trivialise the suffering caused by real global conflicts. Given the responsibility of the media to inform the public with accuracy and fairness, especially during sensitive geopolitical moments, these channels have failed to uphold their duty, deepening scepticism toward legitimate news and paving the way for further disinformation. The channels must act promptly to remove these videos and issue a public apology, ensuring that only verified, factual content is broadcast during national crises.

CJP urged immediate action from all channels

In light of the serious violations outlined, CJP demands immediate corrective and restorative actions from the six channels involved — AAJ Tak, India TV, Times Now Navbharat, NDTV, ABP News, and News18:

• Corrigendum and on-air correction: Acknowledge and correct the false claims aired on the channels, through on-air corrections with equal prominence and visibility as the original segments. we must be scheduled to attract maximum viewer attention, and not relegated to off-peak timeslots.
• Public apology to viewers and affected communities: A formal, unconditional apology must be issued by the channels, both on-air and on all digital platforms, for the dissemination of false and misleading visuals and the resultant panic and misinformation caused.
• Immediate removal of the broadcast videos and related content from the channels must be permanently removed from all platforms, including YouTube and X, to prevent continued circulation of this misinformation

Over News18’s misreporting, CJP insists on a formal and unconditional apology. This apology must be prominently broadcast on-air and across all digital platforms, directly addressing the profound pain and defamation inflicted upon the family and the community of Poonch, CJP asked

Related:

Broadcasting Bias: CJP’s fight against hatred in Indian news

NBDSA cracks down on biased anchors: Orders content removal from Times Now Navbharat and Zee News based on CJP’s complaints

Holding power to account: CJP’s efforts to combat hate and polarisation

The post Apology and Accountability: CJP files complaint with six news channels for airing misleading war clips, false terror claims in ‘Operation Sindoor’ coverage appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This operation starkly highlights India’s growing use of extrajudicial “pushbacks” as a tool to circumvent the complexities of refugee protection, legal detention, and diplomatic engagement. Such actions potentially violate both India’s obligations under international refugee and human rights law, as well as its own legal safeguards for stateless persons and asylum seekers. The refusal of Bangladesh and Myanmar to accept these vulnerable individuals formally has seemingly led India to adopt a policy of indirect expulsion—placing the burden of care onto its neighbours.

The scale of the deportations and the lack of public disclosure by Indian authorities raise profound concerns about accountability and due process. No official confirmation has been made public regarding the exact number deported, the legal status of these persons at the time of removal, or whether they were deported through the involvement of their respective governments or international bodies.

Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma’s public endorsement

The clandestine nature of the deportations was partially lifted when Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma confirmed that detainees—including Rohingya refugees and other declared foreigners without pending appeals—were indeed “pushed back” to Bangladesh. Sarma explicitly described the removals as a Government of India “operation” in which Assam was a stakeholder.

As per a report in Deccan Herald, May 12,  Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma has openly confirmed that these pushbacks are not isolated incidents but part of a deliberate and planned “operation” by the Government of India. Speaking to media in Guwahati on May 10, Saturday last, Sarma had said that Rohingyas and other “declared foreigners” without pending legal appeals were sent from the Matia detention centre to cross into Bangladesh.

“Matia is almost free now, with 30–40 people left,” he said according to Deccan Herald, indicating a drastic reduction in the population of the largest detention facility in India, without explaining the mechanisms or legality of these removals. His statement validates what activists and border watchers had feared: that India is undertaking silent deportations of stateless or vulnerable populations, particularly Rohingya, who neither Myanmar nor Bangladesh has agreed to take back formally.

His framing of the pushbacks as an operational success obscures the severe humanitarian and legal questions at stake—particularly the forced expulsion of stateless persons who have neither been formally recognised as refugees nor granted safe resettlement options. Sarma’s statement also reflects a broader policy shift in Assam and India, characterised by increasingly punitive approaches toward those labelled “foreigners,” with little regard for rights or rehabilitative processes.

What does the on-the-ground data say?

Independent data gathered by the Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) Assam team sheds important light on the evolving reality at the Matia detention centre:

• According to local investigation by our CJP team, all but one of the Convicted Foreign Nationals (CFNs) previously held at Matia have been “pushed back” or deported, leaving only a single Nigerian national, namely Kamardeen Oaladeji Oladimeji, still detained.
• The precise number of deportees remains undisclosed by authorities; however, earlier records indicated 203 CFNs held in Matia. Excluding the one Nigerian detainee, this implies that 202 individuals have been ‘removed’ (read deported)—presumably without transparent, lawful deportation procedures. Details of those in Matia deportation centre may be read here.
• In addition to CFNs, there remain 46 Declared Foreign Nationals (DFNs) at Matia, individuals who have been declared foreigners by Assam’s Foreigners Tribunals but who currently have appeals pending in the High Court or Supreme Court.
• Importantly, our experience at CJP, through ground level investigations, notes that most DFNs are Indian citizens who have been wrongfully declared foreigners, often due to flawed tribunal proceedings or inadequate documentation. These persons should not be treated as deportable foreigners but must be reintegrated into Indian society through proper legal mechanisms.
• One case being fought in the High Court by CJP involves Ajabha Khatoun, a woman wrongly declared a foreigner who faces deportation despite her Indian citizenship claims. On March 3, 2025, the Gauhati High Court’s issued stayed the deportation of Ajabha Khatun, currently lodged in the Matia detention camp of Assam after she was arrested in September 2024.
• The CJP team’s human rights works and humanitarian work, raises critical doubts over whether these pushbacks constitute official deportations involving diplomatic channels, or instead represent unlawful forced expulsions. No public confirmation has been found that these CFNs were formally repatriated through their respective embassies or governments.

This information underlines a troubling reality: India’s deportation machinery at Matia appears to prioritise mass removals over legal protections, transparency, or rehabilitation.

The Case of the Nigerian languishing in Matia: Illegal detention and judicial intervention

In the midst of the mass deportations, the protracted detention of the remaining one Nigerian national, Kamardeen Oaladeji Oladimeji, stands as a stark symbol of systemic failure. Oladimeji has been held at the Matia detention centre for 1,457 days beyond his legally mandated sentence.

“Therefore, it is seen that by the time the order and sentence was passed, the petitioner had already served his sentence as on 13.05.2021. Thus, as on the date of this order, the petitioner has spent 1457 days in illegal detention.” (Para 3)

Convicted in 2021 for offences under the Foreigners Act and the Passports (Entry into India) Rules, Oladimeji had served his six-month imprisonment and paid the fines by May 2021. Yet the state continued to detain him unlawfully without initiating repatriation or granting release, as per a report of LiveLaw.

Recognising the gross illegality, a division bench of the Gauhati High Court issued a strong order directing Assam and central authorities to facilitate his immediate repatriation on May 9, 2025. The Court noted that failure to do so would compel it to release Oladimeji unconditionally, at the risk and cost of the state.

“The State as well as the appropriate authorities in the Home & Political (B) Department, Govt. of Assam; Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs; and the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of External Affairs shall specifically take note of the fact that the sentence of the petitioner was served on 13.05.2021 and therefore, the petitioner is in illegal detention for 1457 days. Therefore, if the appropriate actions are not taken within the due time, the said authorities are put to notice that the Court would be compelled to release the petitioner unconditionally, which would be at the risk and cost of the said authorities.” (Para 9)

Significantly, the Nigerian Embassy has shown readiness to issue an Emergency Travel Certificate upon a video interview, which could be facilitated by the Matia camp authorities. Despite this, bureaucratic inertia and inter-agency delay have perpetuated his illegal incarceration.

Oladimeji’s case starkly illustrates the human cost of systemic indifference and the breakdown of procedural justice in India’s detention centres—where individuals are trapped beyond their sentences due to administrative paralysis and policy neglect.

The complete order may be read below.

A Legal and ethical red Line: The risk of violating non-refoulement

The secrecy and speed of deportations from Matia detention centre raise serious concerns about India’s compliance with international legal obligations, particularly the principle of non-refoulement — a norm that prohibits returning individuals to territories where they may face threats to life, liberty, or persecution.

Although India is not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol, non-refoulement is widely recognised as a principle of customary international law, binding on all nations irrespective of ratification. Moreover, India is a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which under Article 7 prohibits cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment — a protection that logically extends to any deportation that risks exposing someone to such harm.

Indian Constitutional courts have historically affirmed these principles:

• In Ktaer Abbas Habib Al Qutaifi v. Union of India (1999), the Gujarat High Court held that Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and liberty, protects refugees and asylum seekers from being forcibly returned to unsafe conditions.
• In Dongh Lian Kham v. Union of India (Delhi High Court, 2010), the Court explicitly recognised the principle of non-refoulement as part of the constitutional guarantee under Article 21.
• In Nandita Haksar v. State of Manipur (2021), the Manipur High Court permitted Myanmarese nationals fleeing a coup to meet the UNHCR in Delhi, reaffirming India’s obligations under international humanitarian law and its adherence to non-refoulement even outside the refugee treaty framework.

However, recent developments signal a regression.

In May 2025, the Supreme Court of India, while hearing petitions challenging the detention and deportation of Rohingya refugees from Delhi in the case of Jaffar Ullah and Anr. v. U.O.I And Ors, refused to stay their removal. The Court stated that the right to reside in India belongs only to citizens, and thus deportation of non-citizens did not infringe on fundamental rights. The ruling echoed earlier observations in Mohammad Salimullah v. Union of India, where the Court maintained that while non-citizens are entitled to certain constitutional protections (like Articles 14 and 21), they do not have a guaranteed right against deportation — even if the risks upon return are well-documented.

This narrowing interpretation of constitutional protections in cases involving stateless persons and asylum seekers directly undermines the spirit of non-refoulement, and sets a dangerous precedent. It opens the door for the executive to expel individuals without fully evaluating the risk of persecution, torture, or arbitrary detention — outcomes that are extremely likely for groups like the Rohingyas, or individuals expelled without nationality documents.

The situation unfolding in Assam, with individuals being pushed across the border without diplomatic coordination or legal review, cannot be seen as lawful deportation. It is closer to extrajudicial expulsion, and when applied to stateless or persecuted communities, it may constitute a violation of international law, constitutional rights, and basic principles of justice.

The Broader implications: Statelessness, human rights, and the erosion of due process

Together, these developments expose a deeply troubling pattern in India’s approach to foreigners and refugees in Assam, especially Rohingya and Bengali-speaking Muslims:

• The conflation of statelessness with criminality leads to indefinite detention and mass pushbacks that violate fundamental human rights and international legal standards.
• The Foreigners Tribunals in Assam, widely criticised for lack of due process, continue to declare hundreds of individuals foreigners—many wrongfully—subjecting them to detention and the risk of forcible removal.
• Deportations executed without diplomatic agreements or proper notifications amount to illegal “pushbacks”, shifting responsibility onto neighbouring countries ill-equipped to absorb such persons.
• The opacity and lack of accountability in these processes undermines public trust, violates constitutional guarantees of liberty, and renders invisible the suffering of those caught in legal limbo.
• The Government’s eagerness to “empty” Matia detention centre is a hollow metric if it rests on forced expulsion rather than lawful deportation or rehabilitation.
• The persistence of cases like Oladimeji’s reflects systemic failures to honour judicial mandates, international obligations, and the rights of detainees.

As Assam’s Matia detention centre becomes a symbol of secrecy, cruelty, and administrative impunity, the urgent need for transparency and judicial oversight cannot be overstated. The stories emerging from behind its high walls—of coerced deportations, prolonged illegal detentions, and disregard for basic human rights—reveal a deeper rot in India’s treatment of migrants and refugees. Upholding the Constitution means more than rhetoric; it requires an unwavering commitment to legal due process, dignity, and non-discrimination. Civil society, courts, and the media must refuse to look away. What is at stake is not just the fate of a few individuals, but the very soul of a democracy that claims to abide by the rule of law. Ultimately, the crisis at Matia detention centre is not merely an administrative issue. It is emblematic of a broader crisis of justice, humanity, and the rule of law—where the most vulnerable populations become collateral damage in nationalist and securitisation agendas.

Related:

Restoring Citizenship, Rebuilding Lives: CJP continues its journey in Assam

Declared Foreigner, buried Indian: The tragic death of Abdul Matleb in Assam’s detention camp

A jumla or a concrete step? Assam CM’s announcement on Koch Rajbongshi cases raises more questions than answers

SC: Only 10 deported, 33 of 63 contest foreigner status from the Matia Transit Camp, Assam

The post Pushed Out of Sight: The covert deportation and detention crisis at Assam’s Matia detention centre appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The petitioner, who had already been declared an Indian citizen by a Foreigners Tribunal in 2016, was again dragged into a fresh proceeding on the same allegation without any new material—exposing her to renewed trauma and the looming threat of statelessness. The Supreme Court’s decision to quash this second proceeding not only provides much-needed relief in her individual case but also sets an important precedent against the misuse of the Foreigners Act, 1946, as a tool for repeated harassment. This ruling strikes at the heart of Assam’s flawed citizenship adjudication process and re-establishes critical safeguards against bureaucratic overreach.

Citizenship cases: Double jeopardy, a tool used by the state in Assam

The order concerns Tarabhanu Khatoon @ Tarabhanu Bibi, a resident of Nalbari district in Assam, who became the subject of repeated proceedings under the Foreigners Act, 1946. She was first served notice in FT Case No. 269/2016 before the Foreigners Tribunal, Nalbari (at Mukalmua), on the suspicion that she was an illegal migrant from Bangladesh, having allegedly entered India after the cutoff date of March 25, 1971—a date fixed by the Assam Accord and adopted into Section 6A of the Citizenship Act.

In her defence, Tarabhanu submitted strong documentary evidence, including:

• Names of her father and grandfather in the 1966 and 1970 electoral rolls, predating the 1971 cutoff.
• Her own name appearing in voter lists since 1985.
• Oral testimony corroborating her ancestry and residence in India.

Crucially, the State failed to lead any evidence—no witness appeared, and no documentation proving illegal entry was produced. Consequently, the Tribunal on August 31, 2016 declared her to be not a foreigner, effectively affirming her Indian citizenship.

Despite this adjudication, she was again issued a notice on December 15, 2018 in FT Case No. 695/2018, accusing her of being a Bangladeshi national—based on the same allegation and without any fresh material evidence. This triggered a fresh round of litigation and mental trauma, prompting her to challenge the second proceeding.

The Gauhati High Court’s Error: Failure to quash repetitive proceedings

The matter was first heard by the Gauhati High Court, which refused to quash the second FT proceedings, instead stating that she was free to raise her defence before the Tribunal again. The High Court appeared to treat the second notice as if it were procedurally valid, overlooking the fact that a final and binding decision had already been passed in 2016 on the very same issue.

This approach effectively undermined the principle of legal finality, suggesting that citizenship could be questioned ad infinitum, thereby exposing individuals to repeated harassment, legal costs, and potential detention.

Supreme Court’s Ruling: Finality, fairness, and res judicata in citizenship adjudication

A bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan delivered a decisive ruling in favour of the appellant. It held that once a Foreigners Tribunal had given a final finding after providing due opportunity to both sides, the State could not initiate a second proceeding unless it had either:

1. Challenged the original order before the High Court, or
2. Sought a recall of the Tribunal’s order on valid legal grounds.

As no such challenge or recall was made, and no provision for review had been brought to the Court’s attention, the earlier 2016 order stood final. The Supreme Court cited its own precedent in Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India (2019), reiterating that Foreigners Tribunal decisions have binding effect and attract the doctrine of res judicata.

“Once it is not in dispute that on a previous reference the Tribunal after giving opportunity to both sides, on appraisal of evidence, found the appellant not a foreigner, the only course available for the respondent was either to challenge the order before the High Court or seek for its recall on grounds permissible for recall. As no provision for review exists, at least not shown to us, so long the earlier order stands, it is not open to initiate fresh proceedings as the same would be hit by principles of res judicata as held by this Court in Abdul Kuddus.” (Para 9)

In scathing terms, the Court stated in its order that:

“…the subsequent proceedings were nothing but an abuse of the process of law, and therefore, the High Court ought to have interdicted the same.” (Para 9)

The Court’s key observations include:

• There is no provision in the Foreigners Act or allied rules that allows the government to reopen a decided case without following due legal procedures.
• The Tribunal’s 2016 decision was final and binding, having been rendered after due process and full opportunity of hearing to both parties.
• The Supreme Court reaffirmed its precedent in Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India (2019), where it had held that Tribunal orders are quasi-judicial in nature and attract the doctrine of res judicata.

The order rejected the Assam government’s argument that the earlier order was “cryptic”, observing that even if the State found the Tribunal’s reasoning inadequate, its remedy lay in challenging the order legally—not by launching a parallel proceeding. The Court emphasised that allowing multiple and unregulated proceedings on the same issue would destroy the rule of law and severely erode individual liberties.

The complete order may be read here.

Wider significance: A critical check on state overreach in citizenship verification

This order is pivotal, especially in the context of Assam’s fraught citizenship verification machinery, which includes:

• Thousands of cases of double or multiple notices being issued against the same person.
• Use of ex parte orders when individuals fail to appear, sometimes due to lack of notice or financial hardship.
• Detention centres housing individuals for years based on flawed or unchallenged tribunal findings.
• Misuse of Border Police references, often without investigation, disproportionately targeting Bengali-speaking Muslims and other minorities.

It is essential to note that the State of Assam had every opportunity to challenge the 2016 order of the Tribunal, either by filing a review, a recall, or a writ petition, but did none of these. By clearly articulating that re-litigation is impermissible unless prior orders are overturned through proper legal avenues, the Supreme Court has sent a strong message to both the State of Assam and the Foreigners Tribunals to operate within constitutional bounds.

Moreover, this ruling reaffirms that citizenship is a fundamental right, not a bureaucratic uncertainty, and legal finality must be respected to ensure dignity and security of individuals. It also strengthens the rule of law in an area often marked by arbitrariness, communal bias, and procedural irregularities.

Conclusion: A shield against bureaucratic harassment

The Supreme Court’s decision in Tarabhanu Khatoon is more than just a personal victory for the petitioner—it is a significant verdict that draws a firm line against state overreach in citizenship determination. It ensures that once nationality is established, it cannot be questioned endlessly, especially by the same state machinery that failed to prove its case in the first instance.

In a region where identity, citizenship, and belonging have become matters of constant suspicion and state scrutiny, this order restores an essential balance between state power and individual rights, laying down that citizenship cannot be treated as a moving target—especially for India’s most vulnerable.

Related:

Uttarakhand High Court slams police and authority for failure in maintain law and order

Foreigner in Life, Indian in Death: The cruel end of Abdul Matleb in assam’s detention camp

28,000 cases withdrawn or votes secured? Assam CM’s move to drop ‘Foreigner’ cases against Koch Rajbongshi promise under scrutiny

Assam govt to SC: 33/63 of those marked for ‘deportation’ are contesting ‘foreigner’ status in courts

The post “Nothing but an abuse of the process of law”: SC bars second Foreigners Tribunal case against same person, reinforces finality of citizenship verdicts appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Declared a ‘foreigner’ by Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 10 in Nagaon on October 31, 2016 (Case FT(D) No. 24/2015), Matleb had managed to secure bail from the Gauhati High Court in February 2017. But in September 2024, the same court upheld the Tribunal’s declaration. He was detained and sent to the Matia Transit Camp — Assam’s largest and newest detention facility — on December 5, 2024.

For five months, Matleb remained incarcerated in this high-security detention camp, far from his home in Hojai. He was seriously ill for much of that time of detention— taken to hospitals several times, even admitted for 17 days before Eid. Yet, according to his family, he had no serious health issues before his detention. Whatever illness consumed him began only after he was imprisoned. Even as he deteriorated, his family was never provided with a single medical record — neither during his detention, nor after his death.

On the evening of April 17, 2025, the family received a call from Matia officials. Matleb’s condition had worsened, they were told, and they should come see him. Given the long journey — over 300 kilometres from Hojai to Goalpara — the family asked if they could leave the next morning. The officials agreed. But just a few hours later, around 1 a.m., another call came. Matleb had been shifted to the Guwahati Medical College and Hospital (GMCH).

His wife, Husanara Begum, and her brother, Sarmul Islam, immediately left for Guwahati at 3 a.m. They reached the hospital by morning. But instead of finding Matleb under treatment, they were met with silence and evasion. It wasn’t until 3 pm — after hours of waiting and pleading — that Sarmul was allowed into the morgue. That is where he finally saw his brother-in-law, lifeless.

Abdul Matleb was the sole breadwinner for his family — a wife and four daughters, three of them still in school. He worked as a rock breaker, a job his wife also took up to support the household. But now, caught in mourning rituals and with no son to assist her, she cannot return to work. The family is left with no income, no explanation, and no justice.

Even during his medical visits, Matleb was treated as a criminal. He was often taken to hospitals in handcuffs. “Where would he run in that condition?” his brother-in-law had asked the police once. Only then were the cuffs removed.

In the most heart-wrenching moment of this story, the authorities who had insisted Matleb was a Bangladeshi handed over his body to be buried in the land where he was born, lived, and worked all his life. Initially, the family refused to accept the body. “If he was Bangladeshi, send his body there,” they told the officials. But eventually, they relented. His daughters, they felt, should have the chance to see their father one last time.

He was buried in a small graveyard just a few steps from his home in Hojai — the same place his ancestors were buried. A man declared a foreigner by the State was returned in death to the soil of his birth.

This tragedy did not happen in isolation. Similar deaths have occurred in Assam’s detention centres — and in each case, the bodies were quietly returned to their families in India. These stories lay bare the moral and administrative collapse of the state’s ‘foreigner detection’ mechanism.

When a team from Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) visited the family, there were no words that could make sense of the grief. Matleb’s youngest daughter, Abida, who studies in Class IV, could not speak. Her eyes were dry, her face blank. Her smile, her family said, has not returned.

Sarmul Islam, her maternal uncle, recounted the events while speaking to CJP Assam team, and said:

      “We got a call at 9 pm on April 17 saying his health was failing. We told them we’d come early next morning. They said okay.      Then around 1 am, they said he had been shifted to Guwahati. We left at 3 am. But when we reached, they kept us waiting for hours. Finally, after 3 pm, they showed us the body.”

      “We didn’t want to accept the body. If he was a foreigner, send him to Bangladesh, we said. But we thought of the girls. They should at least get to see him one last time.”

      “He never had a serious illness. All of this happened after he was taken to detention. He was taken to hospital four or five times. Only once was he in Guwahati for 13–14 days. They would call us, but never give us any reports. And every time, he was in handcuffs. Only once, after we requested, they removed them.”

“He had all his documents. This happened only because of two names — Abdul Matleb and Matleb Ali. That’s it. No one else in the family has a case. His parents, his relatives — all here. If he’s Bangladeshi, then they are too. But it was just him.”

Assam’s detention regime operates on a cruel paradox. People are declared foreigners on the flimsiest of grounds — spelling errors, document mismatches, legacy data discrepancies. They are then locked away in high-security camps, often far from their families, with little transparency, few legal safeguards, and no meaningful remedy.

Worse still, the system makes no sense even on its own terms. If Matleb was not Indian, why was his body given to his family in Hojai? Why was he buried in the local graveyard? The State has no answer. On behalf of CJP, a team of five set out early in the morning and travelled over eight hours to reach Abdul Matleb’s grieving family. But once there, we were left speechless. The pain in that home was beyond words, the moment beyond description. What can be said when a system, in the name of identifying ‘foreigners’, inflicts such relentless cruelty on its own people? Assam’s Foreigners Tribunals and detention camps have become a dark stain on our democracy—where those who belong are treated like criminals, and where justice is lost to bureaucracy and bias.

This issue has been raised repeatedly — by human rights organisations, especially CJP, in the national media, even in the Assam Legislative Assembly. Yet, the cycle of injustice grinds on.

Abdul Matleb was handcuffed in life and returned as an Indian only in death. In seeking to identify ‘foreigners’, the Indian State is erasing the dignity of its own citizens — and in cases like this, even their lives.’

Related:

CJP triumphs in securing bail for Assam’s Sahid Ali: A step towards restoring citizenship

Ajabha Khatun, among the 63 facing detention in Assam, seeks Supreme Court intervention, emphasis on pending legal remedies

SC: Only 10 deported, 33 of 63 contest foreigner status from the Matia Transit Camp, Assam

SC: Only 10 deported, 33 of 63 contest foreigner status from the Matia Transit Camp, Assam

The post Foreigner in Life, Indian in Death: The cruel end of Abdul Matleb in assam’s detention camp appeared first on SabrangIndia.