In a significant development amid intensifying concerns over arbitrary deportations in Assam, the Supreme Court today granted interim protection from deportation to Jaynab Bibi, a woman declared a foreigner by a Foreigners Tribunal under Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946. The Tribunal’s 2017 declaration had been upheld by the Gauhati High Court earlier this year.
On June 24, a bench comprising Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Vinod Chandran issued notice in Jaynab Bibi’s special leave petition challenging the High Court’s decision dated February 17, 2025. The Court directed that no coercive action, including deportation, shall be taken against the petitioner in the meantime.
“Issue notice returnable on 25.08.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to serve the standing counsel for respondent(s). In the meanwhile, petitioner shall not be deported and no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner.”
Advocates Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi and Akanksha Rai had appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
Challenging Tribunal’s “mechanical” declaration
Jaynab Bibi, who asserts Indian citizenship by birth, contends that she was born and raised in Muamari village, Nagaon district, Assam. As per a report in LiveLaw, in her petition, Jaynab Bibi detailed a comprehensive set of documentary evidence to establish her familial lineage — including the 1951 National Register of Citizens (NRC), electoral rolls from 1965, 1970, 1989, 1997, 2016, and 2018, jamabandi records, and certificates issued by local Gaon Panchayat authorities and the Gaonburah (village headman).
However, the Foreigners Tribunal, in a brief two-page order dated May 20, 2017, had dismissed this evidence. It cited inconsistencies in names and depositions, particularly pointing to the fact that neither the petitioner nor her mother mentioned the petitioner’s uncle during their testimonies. The Tribunal also discredited the Gaonburah certificate that attempted to explain the variation between the names “Kasom Ali” and “Abul Kasem” as referring to the same individual, the petitioner’s father.
Gauhati HC upheld Tribunal’s finding
Despite the extensive documentation provided, the Gauhati High Court found the petitioner had failed to discharge the burden of proof under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act. According to the petition, the High Court ruled that her mother’s oral testimony alone was insufficient to establish her paternal linkage. It also faulted the petitioner for not clarifying the name discrepancy between “Kasom Ali” and “Abul Kasem” in her written pleadings or testimony, noting that the Gaonburah’s explanation, in the absence of corroborating evidence, was inadequate.
The High Court further held that certain certificates produced by the petitioner bore the State Emblem and were thus inadmissible, and that key foundational facts were missing from her written statement. Citing various precedents, it emphasised the importance of laying out all essential facts in the written statement before the Tribunal.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed her writ petition and revoked the interim protection she had been enjoying, allowing the consequences of the Tribunal’s declaration to take effect.
Directions of the Supreme Court
In its order dated June 24, 2025, the Supreme Court directed that no coercive steps, including deportation, be taken against Jaynab Bibi until further orders. While issuing notice returnable on August 25, 2025, the bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Vinod Chandran permitted the petitioner’s counsel to serve a copy of the petition to the standing counsel for the respondents. The Court’s interim direction effectively stays the operation of the Foreigners Tribunal’s declaration and the Gauhati High Court’s judgment, offering immediate protection to the petitioner amid growing national concerns about arbitrary and opaque deportation practices in Assam.
Supreme Court’s earlier concern over arbitrary process
In her plea, as per the LiveLaw report, Jaynab Bibi has relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s observations in Mohd. Rahim Ali v. State of Assam (order dated July 11, 2024), where the Court raised strong concerns about the opaque and often arbitrary processes by which people in Assam are suspected and declared foreigners. The Court in that case had held that mere suspicion cannot justify initiation of proceedings under the Foreigners Act, and that reference-making authorities must disclose the basis for suspecting a person’s nationality. Detailed analysis of the said judgment may be read here.
The complete order may be read below.
Context: Growing national attention to Assam’s deportation practices
The case comes against a backdrop of heightened scrutiny over Assam’s approach to suspected foreigners, particularly Bengali-speaking Muslims. On February 4, 2025, the Supreme Court pulled up the Assam government for the prolonged detention of declared foreigners and directed prompt initiation of deportation proceedings.
Subsequently, the state informed the apex court in March that 13 out of 63 Bangladeshi nationals lodged at the Matia transit camp had been deported.
Since the month of May, concerns grew over reports of Assam authorities “pushing back” individuals, allegedly including Indian citizens, across the Bangladesh border without due legal process or individual determinations of nationality. In response, the All BTC Minority Students Union (ABMSU) approached the Supreme Court, filing a writ petition challenging the constitutionality of this policy. The petition claimed that the deportations were being carried out without Tribunal declarations or nationality verification.
However, on June 2, 2025, the Supreme Court declined to entertain the ABMSU’s plea and asked the petitioner to approach the Gauhati High Court instead. Around the same time, the Court admitted a separate plea filed by a son on behalf of his mother, who was allegedly detained without due process.
Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma has publicly defended the state’s “push back” operations, stating in the assembly that more than 330 individuals had been expelled under the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 — a colonial-era law which allows district commissioners to issue deportation orders without the need for a judicial proceeding.
CJP’s legal battle against post-bail detentions and deportations
Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) has been spearheading a series of petitions before the Gauhati High Court, challenging the sudden re-detention and suspected deportation of individuals who were earlier granted bail during the COVID-19 pandemic under court-issued guidelines. These individuals, all declared foreigners by Tribunals, were released under relaxed bail conditions to decongest detention centres and have, for years, complied with strict weekly or fortnightly police reporting requirements.
Despite this, CJP has documented several cases where persons were abruptly picked up by Assam police in late May and early June 2025. For instance, in the case of Mozida Begum v. Union of India, the High Court had been hearing a plea concerning the re-detention of Hachinur (also known as Hasinur), who was detained from Goalpara despite complying with all bail conditions since 2020. Hasinur was granted bail by the High Court after the Bench took strong exception to the re-arrest, especially given that the 2021 bail order was never cancelled. The Bench observed in its order that: “Since bail had been granted to the son of the petitioner on 7/6/2021, the subsequent detention becomes expressly illegal” and “It becomes the duty of the Court to protect the fundamental rights of the detained person. Illegal detention cannot be allowed even for a minute.” (Details of the case may be read here.)
In another matter for which CJP is providing legal aid, namely Bakkar Ali v. Union of India, the petitioner alleges that his father, Samsul Ali, who was also out on bail, was reportedly handed over to the Border Security Force (BSF) and later found unconscious near the international border in Bijni, raising fears of an attempted illegal deportation. (Details of the case may be read here.)
CJP’s petitions argue that these actions violate Article 21 of the Constitution and constitute a breach of bail orders that were never revoked by any competent court. In court, CJP has highlighted that no fresh show cause notices, tribunal orders, or deportation proceedings were initiated before taking such coercive action. In multiple hearings, the High Court has taken serious note of the allegations, and in some cases, such as that of Majibur Rehman, represented by his wife Reijya Khatun, and Abdul Sheikh, represented by his son Sanidul Sheikh, the bench has sought detailed responses from the Assam government. (Details of the said cases may be read here, here and here.)
These proceedings also come amid wider concerns about Assam’s alleged “push back” policy, which involves the informal expulsion of suspected foreigners, sometimes without even the minimal safeguards of a tribunal declaration or nationality verification. CJP’s filings urge the High Court to reaffirm that bail granted during COVID-19, particularly in the absence of a deportation treaty with Bangladesh, cannot be overridden through unilateral executive action, and that such deportations, if carried out, must comply with both domestic and international legal obligations.
Related:
After incorrect detention claim, Gauhati HC was informed that Doyjan Bibi was handed over to BSF