What We Know So Far: July 25, 2025
In a writ petition case that continues to spotlight the shadowy and undocumented removal of Bengali-speaking Muslim women from Assam, the Gauhati High Court was, on July 25, 2025, confronted with an admission from the State: Doyjan Bibi has been pushed back into Bangladesh. But even as officials claimed the act was carried out by the Border Security Force (BSF) at the request of Assam Police, they failed to produce any certificate, documentation, or acknowledgement showing that the Bangladeshi authorities ever received her.
The matter was being heard in the petition filed by Abdul Rejjak, who has been seeking answers on the whereabouts of his wife, Doyjan Bibi, ever since she was allegedly picked up from their home in Chirang district on the night of May 25, 2025 — without an arrest memo, warrant, or production before a magistrate. The legal aid in this case is being provided by Citizens for Justice and Peace.
On Friday, the FT counsel presented a fresh set of documents from the Assam BSF, purporting to show that Doyjan Bibi, declared a foreigner earlier by a Foreigners Tribunal, had been handed over by the SP (Border), Goalpara to the BSF Sector Headquarters at Panbari on May 26. She was then “pushed back” into Bangladesh the next day, on May 27, from the area of responsibility (AOR) of the 2503 BSF Battalion.
But the documents contained a discrepancy: they identified Doyjan Bibi as the wife of Abdul Munnaf. This triggered renewed alarm. The petitioner, Abdul Rejjak, has consistently identified himself by that name — no alias, no variations.
The Court, during the hearing today, noted that the BSF documents suggested Rejjak’s alias was Abdul Munnaf. But petitioner’s counsel Mrinmoy Dutta categorically denied this:
“I do not use or acknowledge any other name. In earlier court filings, including petitions filed by Doyjan Bibi herself, she clearly stated that her husband is Abdul Rejjak. There is no alias.”
The Bench then confirmed that all identifying information, Doyjan’s name, her father’s name, and her Foreigners Tribunal case number, fully matched the petitioner’s claim. The conclusion was unavoidable: the woman declared a foreigner and pushed back was indeed the petitioner’s wife.
That led to the core issue — one that the State has failed to answer since the case began in June: Where is the proof that Doyjan Bibi was handed over to any Bangladeshi official?
Petitioners: “This is not deportation, this is disappearance”
With mounting frustration, Advocate Dutta confronted the State’s silence: “If they have handed over Doyjan Bibi, they must produce the handover certificate. This is the procedure — a person who is pushed back or deportation must be documented. Otherwise, this is not deportation, this is disappearance. It amounts to human trafficking.”
He continued: “Pushback is a term used for people apprehended while crossing borders illegally — not for detainees removed from detention. In this case, the woman was allegedly in custody and removed. That cannot be called pushback, especially without any formal records.”
The FT counsel admitted, on record, that no such certificate of handover existed. There was no documentation from Bangladeshi authorities confirming receipt. There was no record of the border handover. This, despite the fact that in other cases, the May 2, 2025 Ministry of Home Affairs notification and the Ministry’s own deportation SOP, which lays down that full records must be maintained for every such action.
Dutta underscored this contradiction: “They are not following their own rules. In their own guidelines, deportation must be documented. If they say they have removed someone across the international border, they must show to whom. Otherwise, the person is simply missing.”
Bench: “If there is an illegality, then you must make that challenge in your petition”
The Bench observed that if the petitioner wished to contest the legality of the procedure followed for the pushback, a separate prayer would have to be made: “You will have to file a fresh petition, or amend this one. We cannot decide the legality of pushback unless you specifically challenge it.”
Dutta pushed back: “But the petition is the challenge. The case is that the petitioner’s wife was picked up and has not been seen since. The State now says they pushed her back, but can produce no document to show to whom. That itself proves disappearance.”
Bench: “But that is not the present prayer. You must frame it clearly that the pushback was illegal and the procedure is being challenged.”
Petitioner’s counsel asked for time to consider whether to amend the writ petition or move a fresh one. The Court recorded the State’s version that Doyjan Bibi was “sent back to Bangladesh” but granted the petitioner two weeks to respond. In doing so, the Court did not accept that the State’s failure to follow procedure extinguishes the claim being raised by the petitioner. Instead, it left the door open for legal escalation.
Background: A case of vanishing in plain sight
This case has unfolded through disturbing phases of State inconsistency. At the June 16 hearing, the State initially claimed, based on telephonic instruction, that Doyjan Bibi was in Kokrajhar Holding Centre. But that turned out to be false. By June 25, the State admitted she had been handed over to the BSF. The BSF later said she was “pushed back,” but until today, no certificate of deportation, no arrest memo, no handover documentation, and no FIR or judicial oversight has been placed on record. The only thing the State has submitted are internal letters stating that Doyjan Bibi was “handed over”.
Constitutional Stakes: Is the State Above Its Own Procedure?
The issue now is no longer just Doyjan Bibi — but whether the Indian State can pick up a person it has labelled a “foreigner,” and push them across an international border without any formal deportation order, without any certificate of receipt, and without leaving behind even a scrap of documentation.
The Gauhati High Court has already noted in previous cases that “foreigners” are still entitled to fundamental rights under Article 21. The State’s own 2025 guidelines require recorded and certified deportation through diplomatic channels.
The petitioner has rightly asked: “If there is no record of where she was sent, or to whom she was handed, how can this be called legal deportation?”
The Court will now hear the matter again after two weeks. But until then, the core question remains: Can a woman in State custody simply vanish without a trace — and the system call that deportation?
Details of the previous hearings may be read here.
Related: