On June 4, 2025, the Gauhati High Court directed the State of Assam to inform the families of two men — Abdul Sheikh and Majibar Rahman — about their present whereabouts. Both men, who had previously been declared “foreigners” by Foreigner Tribunals (FTs) and released from detention during the COVID-19 period, were reportedly picked up by police from their homes in Chirang district on the night of May 25, 2025. (Detailed reports of such illegal detentions may be read here, here and here.)
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.”
- 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: