What We Know So Far: June 9, 2025
The Gauhati High Court on Monday, June 9, heard four separate writ petitions invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, each seeking urgent relief and accountability in the cases of individuals who were allegedly picked up by Assam Police from their homes in Chirang and Dhubri districts between May 24–25, 2025, without any arrest memo, warrant, or formal production before a magistrate.
All four individuals — Doyjan Bibi, Samsul Ali, Majibur Rehman, and Abdul Sheikh — had previously been declared foreigners by Foreigners Tribunals (FTs), and were later released from detention under bail regimes notified by the State in accordance with Supreme Court directions during the COVID-19 period. All of these individuals are being provided legal aid by Citizens for Justice and Peace. They had all been regularly reporting to police as part of their bail conditions until the date of their sudden and unexplained apprehension. Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta appeared in these matters.
In the hearings, the High Court addressed key factual developments in each case, including the revival of FT orders, lack of procedural documentation in alleged deportation, and confirmation of detainees’ custody in holding centres. While the Court granted limited relief — such as visitation rights and directions to trace detainees — the legality of the State’s actions and procedural safeguards during or prior to deportation remain under ongoing judicial scrutiny. The matters are being heard since Friday, June 6, 2025.
Meanwhile, through independent social media sources, CJP has found that Doyjan Bibi, a woman from India may be currently lodged in a jail in Bangladesh and Samsul Ali in a similarly distraught condition in No Man’s land between the two countries. See the memorandums submitted to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) here and here.
The matters are next listed between June 10 and June 20, 2025.
Case 1: Abdul Rejjak v. Union of India (Re: Doyjan Bibi)
Bench: Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and N. Unni Krishnan Nair
Status: Revival of FT Order due to non-compliance
Next hearing: June 16
The first case involved the petition filed by Abdul Rejjak, husband of Doyjan Bibi, who was picked up from her residence in Gauripur, Dhubri district on the night of May 24, 2025. She had previously been declared a foreigner by FT No. 4, Dhubri in 2017, and was detained for over two years before being released in 2021.
Notably, in 2021, a coordinate bench of the Gauhati High Court had set aside the ex parte FT opinion that declared her a foreigner — subject to the condition that she reappear before the Tribunal to file her written statement and participate in fresh proceedings. According to the State’s submissions, Doyjan Bibi failed to appear before the FT on the reappointed date, leading to the revival of the original FT declaration and cancellation of bail.
The petitioner has argued that the non-appearance was due to a delay in receiving the court’s 2021 order and not due to wilful default. The Court took note of these circumstances and listed the matter for continued hearing on June 16, where it may further assess the legal consequences of non-compliance and whether any further relief is appropriate in light of the revived foreigner opinion.
Case 2: Bakkar Ali v. Union of India (Re: Samsul Ali)
Bench: Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and N. Unni Krishnan Nair
Status: BSF handover admitted; procedural details missing
Next hearing: June 10
In this petition, Bakkar Ali, a resident of Goraimari No. 2, sought a writ of habeas corpus for his father, Samsul Ali, who had been declared a foreigner in 2016 (FT Case No. BNGN/FT(CHR)2039/08), detained for over three years, and released in February 2020 in accordance with Supreme Court-mandated bail conditions. Since then, he had faithfully reported weekly to Panbari Police Station, with his last appearance recorded on May 21, 2025.
According to the petition, Samsul Ali was picked up by police around 11:30 PM on May 25 without any arrest memo, warrant, or judicial order. Despite efforts by the family to trace his whereabouts, the authorities refused to accept an FIR and provided no information.
During the hearing, the State admitted that Samsul Ali was handed over to the BSF, reportedly pursuant to a Government of India notification. However, no documentation or particulars of the handover — such as the BSF post, time, or any memorandum — were provided.
The Court expressed serious displeasure with the lack of procedural information and stated that the incomplete information was not at all appreciated. In the order, the bench noted that “The Superintendent of Police (Border), Chirang should have provided appropriate particulars.”
The Court directed that the SP (Border) Chirang must communicate with the FT counsel and transmit all relevant details via WhatsApp, including any official memorandum of handover. The matter has been listed for immediate hearing on June 10, with the Court expected to examine whether the deportation complied with legal procedures, including those outlined in the State’s own affidavit before the Supreme Court in Rajubala Das v. Union of India.
Case 3: Rejiya Khatun v. Union of India (Re: Majibur Rehman)
Bench: Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and N. Unni Krishnan Nair
Status: Detention in Holding Centre confirmed; visitation rights granted
Next hearing: June 20
In the third case, the Court heard a habeas corpus petition filed by Rejiya Khatun, wife of Majibur Rehman (also known as Majibur Sheikh), who had been declared a foreigner by FT Chirang in 2019. After completing two years in detention, he was released on November 15, 2021, under COVID-19 bail guidelines, and had been consistently reporting to Kajolgaon Police Station every week — his last recorded visit being May 21, 2025.
The petition alleged that he was picked up from his home in Salijhora at night on May 25, without any documentation or court order. For over two weeks, no information about his custody was shared with the family. Attempts to file an FIR were refused, and a complaint had to be sent by post.
In Court, the counsel for FT matters confirmed that Majibur Rehman is currently being held at the Kokrajhar Holding Centre. In response, the Court granted visitation rights to the petitioner and a maximum of two others and directed that his signature be obtained on the vakalatnama authorising legal representation. The petitioner’s counsel is to update the Court on the outcome of the visit. The case is listed for further hearing on June 20.
Details of the previous hearing may be read here.
Case 4: Sanidul Sheikh v. Union of India (Re: Abdul Sheikh)
Bench: Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and N. Unni Krishnan Nair
Status: Detention in Holding Centre confirmed; visitation rights granted
Next hearing: June 20
Similar in fact and structure to the previous matter, this petition was filed by Sanidul Sheikh, son of Abdul Sheikh, who was declared a foreigner ex parte in 2018 (FT Case No. BNGN/FT/CHR/220/07), detained for two years, and released in April 2021 under Supreme Court guidelines.
He had been reporting weekly to Kajolgaon Police Station, and was last seen signing the register on May 21, 2025. The family claims he was picked up by police from their residence in Chatibargaon at 11:30 PM on May 25 without any documentation, and subsequently disappeared. As in other cases, the family’s attempts to file an FIR were rebuffed.
During the hearing, the State submitted that Abdul Sheikh is detained at the Kokrajhar Holding Centre. The Court granted visitation rights, allowed up to two family members to accompany the petitioner, and instructed that his signature on a vakalatnama be collected. The matter is also listed for June 20, alongside the Majibur Rehman matter.
Details of the previous hearing may be read here.
Other such similar cases
While four of the habeas corpus petitions currently before the Gauhati High Court are being pursued with legal aid support from Citizens for Justice and Peace, they are by no means the only such instances. The case of Mozida Begum, who approached the Court independently regarding the sudden detention of her son Hachinur @ Hasinur, reflects that similar patterns of late-night police pick-ups, denial of access to legal process, and prolonged non-disclosure of whereabouts are affecting others beyond the immediate CJP-supported cases. Her case — involving a person released on bail and complying with reporting obligations — reinforces that these are not isolated incidents, but rather part of a larger trend impacting multiple families across Assam, raising shared concerns about procedural fairness, transparency, and the potential misuse of FT declarations to bypass due process protections.
Case: Mozida Begum v. Union of India (Re: Hachinur @ Hasinur)
Bench: Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Malasri Nandi
Status: Court issues interim stay on deportation of detainee; confirms he is held at Kokrajhar Holding Centre
Next hearing: June 11
On June 6, 2025, the Gauhati High Court heard the petition filed by Mozida Begum, mother of Hachinur @ Hasinur, a resident of Milan Nagar, Baladmari, Goalpara district. The petitioner moved the High Court after her son — a declared “foreigner” previously released on conditional bail — was suddenly picked up by the Border Police of Goalpara on May 25, 2025, despite regular compliance with bail conditions, including weekly reporting to the local police station.
The petitioner, represented by Advocate A.R. Sikdar, submitted that her son had been faithfully reporting to Goalpara Police Station, with his last three appearances logged on May 5, May 12, and May 19, 2025. These were duly acknowledged by the Officer-in-Charge, and an extract of the attendance register was annexed to the writ petition.
According to the petition, Hachinur was taken into custody on May 25 by personnel from the Border Police wing of Goalpara without prior notice, arrest memo, warrant, or any cancellation of his bail order. He was initially taken to the Goalpara Police Reserve, then transferred to the Transit Camp in Matia, where family members were told he was no longer in custody. Multiple inquiries by the family failed to elicit any information about his present location.
During the hearing on June 6, the counsel for the Foreigners Tribunal submitted that Hachinur is currently lodged at the Kokrajhar Holding Centre, located at the 7th Assam Police Battalion complex in Charaikhola. This was the first official confirmation of his whereabouts, nearly two weeks after he had been picked up.
Given the serious apprehensions of unlawful deportation expressed in the petition — especially in light of recent alleged “pushback” cases across the Indo-Bangladesh border — the Court issued the following interim directions:
No deportation of Hachinur shall be carried out without express orders of the Court;
The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Border), Kamrup (Metro) shall be informed of this order via email or WhatsApp by the FT standing counsel;
A copy of the order must also be forwarded to the Kokrajhar Holding Centre, and proof of such communication shall be placed before the Court on the next date;
The matter is next listed for June 11, 2025, when the State is expected to file its response, and the Court will consider further directions, including on the issue of bail.
The case has highlighted not only procedural irregularities in the manner of detention but also a lack of transparency in the custodial transfer of declared foreigners, even when they are under judicially approved bail protection.
The complete order may be read below.
Conclusion: A worrying pattern of secret detentions, procedural evasion, and statelessness risks in Assam
The five above-mentioned habeas corpus cases brought before the Gauhati High Court between June 4 and June 9, 2025, taken together, reveal more than isolated procedural lapses — they reflect a systemic pattern of disregard for constitutional safeguards, legal process, and transparency in Assam’s handling of individuals declared as “foreigners” under the Foreigners Act.
In each of these cases — whether it was Abdul Sheikh, Majibur Rehman, Doyjan Bibi, Samsul Ali, or Hachinur @ Hasinur — the individuals were:
Declared foreigners years ago by Foreigner Tribunals, often on ex parte or minimally reasoned orders;
Released from long-term detention under Supreme Court-mandated bail conditions during the COVID-19 period;
Complying regularly with all reporting obligations, including weekly appearances at police stations;
Then suddenly picked up between May 24–25, 2025, without arrest memos, warrants, or production before a magistrate;
With no information provided to families for days or weeks, forcing them to approach the High Court for basic disclosure;
And in at least one case (Samsul Ali), possibly deported without any official record of nationality verification or BSF handover protocol.
The Court, to its credit, has taken some necessary remedial steps: ordering disclosure of detainees’ locations, granting visitation rights, requiring vakalatnamas, staying deportation in one case, and demanding that missing procedural records (such as BSF handover documents) be produced. But the underlying pattern remains deeply concerning.
These are not instances of absconding or violation of bail — in fact, all five individuals were in regular contact with police authorities up to the week of their detention. Their sudden re-arrest — without formal notice, and in some cases without revocation of their bail — suggests a shadow system of policing that bypasses the courts, leaves families uninformed, and raises serious questions about executive overreach in matters of citizenship and detention.
What’s more, most of these Foreigners Tribunal opinions failed to establish even a prima facie case of alternative nationality. In several cases, the individuals were never shown to have crossed a border or held documents of any other country. Yet, the assumption of “foreignness” — once declared — now operates with a finality and force that can lead to detention, disappearance, and possible expulsion — even years later, and even after bail has been granted.
These cases expose a deeply troubling legal vacuum:
- The Foreigners Tribunals continue to deliver life-altering orders without establishing key facts — such as where the individual is allegedly from.
- Police and border authorities act without judicial oversight — detaining individuals with no fresh order, often in complete secrecy.
- Families are denied access, both physically and legally, until they invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court.
- And in the background looms the risk of statelessness — where a person is stripped of recognition in India, but not acknowledged as a citizen by any other country.
In a constitutional democracy, the deprivation of liberty must be backed by law, transparency, and due process. The five cases heard this week suggest those principles are being routinely bypassed in Assam’s implementation of the Foreigners Act.
As the matters come up again between June 10 and June 20, the Court has an opportunity not only to remedy individual violations, but to ask the larger question: Can a person be deprived of their freedom — and potentially their country — without judicial scrutiny, without nationality verification, and without a legal process the public can see and challenge?
So far, the answer has been far from clear.