Since May 23, 2025 individuals declared to be Foreigners (Bangladeshi) (DFN) by the Foreigners Tribunals (FT), which are quasi-judicial bodies tasked with citizenship determination in Assam, have been arrested without any stated cause or any prior intimation and some of these individuals were pushed back into Bangladesh. This push back can more appropriately be defined as push out, as, none of the standard operating procedures related to deportation, like nationality status verification, had been carried out before these individuals were pushed out to Bangladeshi territory. Under these circumstances there was no obligation on part of Bangladesh to accept these people and resultantly these individuals were confined to the no man’s land between the two nations. This resulted in an absurd situation where individuals who had been arrested and pushed out have been, latter, found in Indian Territory. In one such case, Bakkar Ali vs. Union of India (UOI),  the Guwahati High Court (GHC) clearly stated that if the individual is again apprehended and sought to be deported, the proper procedure (is to) be followed in the process.

Few of the individuals who were pushed out had cases pending in the GHC and the Supreme Court (SC). Few of these individuals, according to the Chief Minister of Assam, were brought back through diplomatic dialogues with Bangladesh. Even more alarmingly, most of the individuals arrested and pushed out under this operation, had already been granted conditional bail by the Supreme Court orders dated May, 10, 2019 in WP(C) 1045/2018 -Supreme Court Legal Services Committee Vs. The Union of India and Ors and on April 15, 2020 passed in WP(C) (Suo Motu) 1/ 2020 during the Covid-19 pandemic. These orders granted conditional bail to DFNs who had spent more than either three or two years in detention centres. The government had not made any application or prayer, either in the GHC or the SC, relating to the cancellation of the bail granted. This was flagged by Justice Kalyan Rai Surana, speaking for the division bench comprising Justice Malsari Nandi during the hearing in the Sanidul Sheikh vs. UOI case, who stated:

‘You have not prayed before the court to recall all those orders granting bail. Once they are on bail, you will have to follow due process in order to take them into custody again. So somebody must have been overlooking this. Nobody thought that the order of a court needed to be cancelled or recalled before arresting them’.              

This observation by the division bench of Guwahati High Court clearly exposes the arbitrary and illegal nature of these arrests/detentions. At this point it is abundantly clear that the government can neither justify the arbitrary arrest of these individuals, as seen in Sanidul Sheikh vs. UOI, nor can they justify the practice of push back, as seen in Bakkar Ali vs. UOI. Hence the actions of the Assam government in since May 23, clearly appear to be entirely unjustified and were carried out in disregard to the due process. Detailed coverage of recent proceedings in the Gauhati High Court may be read here.

2) Deportation not ‘Push-Back’

Despite these visible procedural lapses in the arrest, detention and push back of DFNs, the   Chief Minister, Himanta Biswas Sarma has strongly defended the actions of his government in his speech during the special session of the Assam legislative assembly held on June 9, 2025. These justifications were based on his interpretation of judgements/orders given by the Supreme Court. The first court directive, cited by the Chief Minister, was made through a (misreading) of the orders passed in the Rajubal Das vs. UOI case. Sarma stated: ‘There is pressure on the state government from the Supreme Court also to act on expulsion of foreigners.”

While this statement is technically true, it also important that look into the orders passed by the court in the Rajubala Das case.  In this case, the apex court criticised the central and Assam government’s inability to deport individuals declared to be foreigners. The court especially criticised the government for not deporting four individuals who had been held in detention centres for more than three years. This not only violated the Supreme Court orders referred to earlier, but also violated article 21 of the Indian constitution which protects the live and liberty of an individual from arbitrary state action. Similarly the court was also unhappy with delay in Nationality Status Verification of the detainees, as this is an essential step in the process of deportation. Hence, the court directed both the Assam and the central governments to speed up the process of nationality status verification so that these individuals could be deported. The court did not, in any way, ask the Assam government to push individuals into Bangladesh without nationality status verification, as any action like this would itself be a violation of article 21 as it would endanger the lives of the individuals being pushed back. Hence the Chief Minister’s justification of his government’s actions is based on a very narrow reading of the court’s orders. A detailed analysis of the orders in the Rajubala case undertaken by Citizens for Justice and Peace, may be read here.

3) Misreading the 6a Judgement

The Chief Minister also cited the judgement given by the Supreme Court’s constitutional bench on the constitutional validity of section 6a of the Citizenship Act (1955). He stated:

The section 6a verdict affirms that the Immigrant (Expulsion from Assam) Act (1950) (IEAA) remains valid and operative. This means that to expel foreigners the government need not go to the tribunals. The 1950 act says that if the DC (Deputy Commissioner) prima facie thinks someone is a foreigner, they can be evicted from the state of Assam’

Based on this, he surmised: ‘Now that the state is empowered to evict people under the Immigrant (Expulsion from Assam) Act (1950), hence push back is normal’

While it is true that the IEAA allows the government to order the expulsion of certain immigrants from Assam and it is similarly true that the Supreme Court affirmed the validity of the IEAA, the claims made by the Chief Minister are, fortunately, unjustified. To better understand the role of IEAA within the broader field of citizenship determination in Assam one needs to refer to the relevant paragraphs of the constitutional bench’s majority judgement, i.e. 368- 382. Within these paragraphs it becomes apparent that the petitioners had contended that IEAA, being an enactment specific to the immigrants in Assam, should apply to the exclusion of the Foreigners Act (1946). In essence, the contention of the petitioners was that only the provisions of the IEAA should apply to Assam, overriding the Foreigners Act and its subsequent orders.

This contention was rejected by the constitutional bench as it saw no conflict between the two statutes and held that both of them supplement and complement each other under the framework of section 6a. In simpler terms, according to the 6a judgement, even if an individual is charged under the provisions of IEAA they will still have to be presented in front of the Foreigners Tribunals where due process will be followed. Hence the Chief Minister’s claims that the state is empowered to evict people, without referring the cases to the Foreigners tribunals is entirely unfounded and also directly contradictory to the Supreme Court’s judgement.

Lastly, even if we accept the Assam government’s interpretation of the 6a judgement, it still would not justify the expulsion of individuals as they were already out on bail, as mentioned earlier. The actions of the Assam government since May 23, 2025 are full of procedural lapses and seem to be based on flawed interpretations of Supreme Court judgements/ orders. These oversights seem to be a result of the regime’s eagerness to expel DNFs, which may be admirable to many, but; the government should be wary of the fact that any negation of due process, irrespective of the cause, drains the public’s trust on institutions.

(The authors: Samik Roy Chowdhury is a PhD Scholar at the Institute of Development Studies Kolkata, Nargis Choudhury, a PhD Scholar, The Assam Royal Global University and Gorky Chakraborty, an Associate Professor, Institute of Development Studies Kolkata)

Related:

SC stays deportation of woman declared foreigner, issues notice on challenge to Gauhati HC Order

No breach, no recall, yet detained again: Gauhati HC seeks affidavit from State for re-detentions of COVID-era released detainees

Pushed Back, Let Down: How the state has let down the marginalised in Assam

The post Disregarding Due Process: Debunking the justification of push-outs in Assam appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

Gauhati HC again grants visitation in Torap Ali petition challenging re-detention of uncle as affidavit opposing claims of regular police reporting is filed

“Bail once granted can’t be ignored”: Gauhati HC seeks legal basis for re-detentions of COVID-era released detainees

The post SC stays deportation of woman declared foreigner, issues notice on challenge to Gauhati HC Order appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In two closely linked petitions involving allegations of unlawful re-detention of individuals released under COVID-era bail guidelines, the Gauhati High Court this week recorded State admissions of full bail compliance, and directed the Government to file detailed objections by affidavit explaining how such persons can now be re-detained without first recalling standing judicial bail orders.

The petitions — Sanidul Sheikh v. Union of India, whose hearing took place on June 25, and Reijya Khatun v. Union of India, whose hearing was held on June 26, concern Abdul Sheikh and Majibur Rehman, respectively, both of whom were declared foreigners by Foreigners Tribunals (FTs), spent over two years in detention, and were released under High Court–monitored COVID bail orders pursuant to the Supreme Court’s 2020 directions in Suo Motu WP(C) No. 1/2020. Both had been reporting weekly to their local police stations for over two years, but were picked up again in May 2025, without notice or any recorded violation of bail conditions. CJP has been providing legal aid in both of these cases.

June 25: Sanidul Sheikh v. Union of India 

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta submitted that Abdul Sheikh, father of the petitioner Sanidul, was released on bail on April 30, 2021 pursuant to an April 15, 2020 order of the Supreme Court, and had consistently reported to the Kajolgaon Police Station every week, with no lapse recorded.

The Bench, comprising Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice K. Sema, directly questioned the State by asking “Has he been appearing every week in compliance with the Court’s bail conditions?” 

To which, the FT Counsel responded affirmatively, by stating that “Yes, it is an admitted fact. He appeared regularly as directed.”

However, the FT counsel attempted to argue that the bail should no longer shield the detainee from re-arrest or deportation, stating: “The bail was granted to those awaiting deportation during COVID. The Government is now preparing for deportation of such persons. The scenario has changed.”

The Court, however, expressed serious concern over this position, pointing out that no attempt had been made to formally recall or modify the bail and stated that “You have not made any prayer before this Court or before the Supreme Court to recall those bail orders. Once bail is granted, it continues unless recalled. You cannot detain someone simply because the government’s policy has shifted.”

The FT counsel contended that the bail was part of a “blanket order,” and not specific to any individual, and that deportation had always been legally permissible — it was only delayed due to pandemic conditions.

However, the bench stated that “Yes, but unless you recall bail, detention remains impermissible. Bail once granted cannot simply be ignored.”

When petitioner’s counsel asserted that continuing detention in light of bail and compliance was illegal, the Bench reiterated that a full hearing would occur only once the State filed its objection and provided that “Let your affidavit be filed. The Court will examine the legal basis you’re asserting.”

In its formal order, the Court recorded that:

• Bail had been granted in 2021 under Supreme Court direction.
• The detainee had complied with all bail conditions.
• The State was proposing to argue that detention is still lawful due to the finality of the FT’s opinion and the resumption of deportation efforts.

The State was directed to file a detailed affidavit laying out its legal position. The Court specified that the affidavit must be served at least six days before the next hearing to give the petitioner time to reply.

The matter is now listed for July 16, 2025, following the court’s summer vacation.

Details of the earlier hearings may be read here.

June 26: Reijya Khatun v. Union of India 

On June 26, the same Bench heard a structurally identical case, involving Majibur Rehman, husband of petitioner Reijya Khatun, who had been released on November 15, 2021 after more than two years in detention.

The State reiterated its earlier position: the release was part of the blanket implementation of the Supreme Court’s 2020 directions and was not rooted in a specific Gauhati High Court bail order. It argued again that the conditions that had earlier prevented deportation no longer existed, and that the State was now preparing to act on the FT opinion. However, as in the previous case, the State had not filed any application to cancel or vary the bail before taking Majibur Rehman back into custody.

Senior Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta, appearing for the petitioner, requested the Court to pass the same order as it had done in the Abdul Sheikh matter. The Bench agreed. It recorded the same facts and issued similar directions: the State is to file an affidavit setting out its legal justification for re-detention despite bail and compliance, and the petitioner may file a reply thereafter. This matter too has been listed for July 16.

Both hearings underscore a deeper legal question now facing the Gauhati High Court — can persons released on bail under court-supervised COVID directives, who have not breached any conditions of their release, be lawfully detained again merely because the State’s administrative position on deportation has shifted?

Details of the earlier hearings may be read here.

Key legal question before the High Court

The legal question now before the High Court is of substantial constitutional significance: Can a person who has been released on bail under the directions of a Constitutional Court, and who has never violated the terms of that bail, be re-arrested and placed in detention without cancellation of that bail order?

In both hearings, the petitioners stressed that continued detention of persons complying with court-imposed conditions amounts to illegal and arbitrary custody, particularly in the absence of any move by the State to recall or modify the original bail. The State, on the other hand, appears to be positioning itself on the claim that while the bail may have been lawfully granted at the time, it does not preclude deportation now that the barriers to enforcement have been lifted.

While the Court has not yet ruled on the legality of the renewed detention, it has recorded all relevant facts—particularly the undisputed bail compliance—and has granted the State one last opportunity to legally justify its position through affidavits. It has also directed that the petitioners must be given sufficient time to respond.

These petitions are part of a broader set of = proceedings currently before the Gauhati High Court, all dealing with the May 2025 re-detentions of Bengali-speaking Muslim residents of Assam who were released on long-standing bail and had been fulfilling all judicially imposed conditions. In most cases, the families were not served with arrest memos, were denied FIR registration, and had to approach the High Court for relief.

The orders passed on June 25 and 26 therefore not only shape the outcome for Abdul Sheikh and Majibur Rehman, but could also set a precedent on how the State must legally proceed before attempting to detain or deport individuals released under court orders, a question that will directly affect dozens of similar cases emerging across Assam. The Court’s eventual ruling in these two cases will likely set the tone for how other COVID-era bail orders are to be treated, and whether the State can override judicially protected liberty simply by citing administrative readiness to deport.

Related:

Gauhati HC orders verification of bail compliance in WP challenging illegal detention of Abdul Sheikh

Gauhati HC seeks verification of bail compliance in writ petition filed by Reijya Khatun for detained husband Majibur Rehman

Holding centres, missing memos, and silent transfers: Gauhati HC hears 5 petitions filed by families of Bengali-speaking Muslim detainees in Assam

CJP submits supplementary memo to NHRC with survivor and family testimonies on Assam’s expulsions of Bengali-speaking Muslims

The post No breach, no recall, yet detained again: Gauhati HC seeks affidavit from State for re-detentions of COVID-era released detainees appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Gauhati High Court on Thursday, June 20, officially closed the habeas corpus petition filed by Mozida Begum, after confirming that her son Hasinur, also known as Hachinur, had been released in compliance with the Court’s June 16, 2025 bail order. While acknowledging that the re-arrest violated standing bail, the Court declined the petitioner’s plea for compensation, citing that the writ challenging the original Foreigners Tribunal (FT) declaration remains pending with the Gauhati High Court.

Details of previous hearings may be read here, here and here.

Background of the case

Hasinur was declared a foreigner by an FT and detained for over two years before being released on June 7, 2021, under a Division Bench order of the Gauhati High Court, which implemented Supreme Court–issued COVID-19 bail guidelines from Suo Motu WP(C) 1/2020.

Since then, he had been complying with all bail conditions, including weekly appearances at the Goalpara Police Station. His last recorded appearance was on May 19, 2025.

Despite this, on May 25, 2025, he was allegedly picked up from home at 11 PM by border police officials, without an arrest memo or magistrate production. He was taken to the Kokrajhar Holding Centre and kept incommunicado, triggering a habeas petition from his mother on June 4.

Chronology of the proceedings in the High Court

June 6, 2025: Issuance of notice

• The habeas corpus petition was taken up for the first time before the Division Bench of Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Malasri Nandi.
• The petition alleged that Hasinur had been re-arrested on the night of May 25, 2025, despite already being on bail since June 2021 and complying with its conditions.
• No arrest memo or formal warrant was presented, and his whereabouts were concealed from the family.
• The Court issued notice to the State and the FT counsel. Notice was also issued on the interim prayer for bail.
• The matter was made returnable on June 11, 2025.

June 11, 2025: Visitation granted, attendance verification ordered

• Counsel for the petitioner submitted Annexure 4 — a police-station-signed attendance sheet showing regular appearances by Hasinur, including on May 5 and May 12, 2025.
• The Court granted visitation rights to Mozida Begum and up to two family members, permitting them to meet Hasinur at the Kokrajhar Holding Centre.
• The signature on vakalatnama was allowed to be taken during the visit.
• The Court ordered the copy of the writ petition and Annexure 4 to be sent to the Officer-in-Charge of Goalpara Police Station for verification.
• It directed FT counsel to facilitate quick transmission of these documents to both the SP (Border), Goalpara and the police station by email.
• The matter was listed for June 16, 2025.

June 16, 2025: Court declares continued detention illegal, grants immediate bail

• The petitioner’s counsel confirmed that visitation had occurred and reiterated that Hasinur had been complying with his bail conditions.
• The Court 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.”
• The Court rejected the State’s request for adjournment, noting that failure to seek instructions could not be used to delay compliance with judicial orders.
• It ordered the immediate release of Hasinur from the Kokrajhar Holding Centre.
• The SP (Border), Goalpara, was directed to ensure that the order was carried out.
• The matter was listed for June 20, 2025, for confirmation of compliance.

June 20 hearing: Release confirmed, compensation refused

At the final hearing, the State submitted an inter-departmental communication dated June 19, 2025, from the Senior SP, Goalpara to the IGP (Border), Assam, confirming that Hasinur was released after a medical check-up in compliance with the Court’s order.

Counsel for the petitioner pressed for monetary compensation, arguing that the detention had been clearly unlawful, as the State had re-arrested someone already on judicial bail without recall or review of that order.

While the Court acknowledged the procedural default, stating: “There was an admitted default on the part of the authority in arresting the detained person despite the bail order passed earlier in 2021”, it declined to entertain the prayer for compensation, stating:

“In view of the fact that the challenge to the FT order declaring the son of the petitioner a foreigner is pending before this Court, the prayer for compensation is refused.”

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of and marked as closed.

This case is a key example of how Assam’s foreigner detection regime is facing judicial scrutiny for violating due process and liberty rights. The Court reaffirmed that bail granted by judicial order cannot be set aside by executive action, and that the State must follow procedural safeguards, especially when liberty is at stake.

The case sets an important precedent on:

• Respecting standing bail orders;
• The unlawfulness of re-arrest without judicial revocation;
• And the importance of verifying compliance through police station attendance logs.

Although compensation was denied, the case has highlighted systemic failures and reinforced that any deprivation of liberty must withstand judicial scrutiny.

The order may be read here:

Related:

Gauhati HC: Union government admits Samsul Ali was handed over to BSF, Court grants family visitation rights if not yet deported

The Immigrant Expulsion from Assam Act, 1950: Re-evaluating executive powers in light of judicial pronouncements and due process

Gauhati HC orders verification of police attendance records in re-arrest of two bail-compliant detainees in Torap Ali case

Gauhati HC grants visitation rights after state confirms Doyjan Bibi is in Kokrajhar Holding Centre

“Illegal detention not even for a minute”: Gauhati HC orders immediate release of bail-compliant detainee in Assam

The post Gauhati HC closes Habeas petition after Hasinur’s release from detention, declines compensation while acknowledging procedural default appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a writ petition raising critical questions about the recent re-detention of individuals previously released under High Court–granted COVID bail, the Gauhati High Court on June 20 directed the Foreigners Tribunal (FT) counsel to send the relevant court order to the Superintendent of Police (Border), Chirang, for verification of whether Abdul Sheikh — the father of the petitioner, Sanidul Sheikh — had been complying with weekly police station attendance conditions since his release on bail in April 2021.

The Court’s direction came after the counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta, informed the bench that a court-permitted visitation had taken place at the Kokrajhar Holding Centre, and that the petitioners were pressing for bail on the basis of the detained person having been reporting weekly to the police station in accordance with conditions imposed in the High Court’s release order dated April 15, 2020. CJP has been providing legal aid to the petitioner in the present case.

Details of the previous hearing may be read here and here.

Court: Compliance with bail condition must be verified before detention is justified

Reading from Paragraph 13 of the writ petition, the Court noted that the petitioner had specifically stated that Abdul Sheikh was regularly visiting the designated police station, with the last visit recorded on May 21, 2025, just days before his sudden re-detention. The petition relies on Annexure 6, which contains documentation of his reporting. Justice Kalyan Rai Surana, speaking for the Division Bench also comprising Justice Malasri Nandi, noted an important lapse in the State’s conduct:

“The point is not whether there is a challenge to the foreigner status or not. The recalling of the bail orders was not filed. Someone must have been overlooking that.”

This statement highlights that no application had been filed by the State to recall or cancel the original bail order, under which Abdul Sheikh had been released after more than two years in detention on April 30, 2021, as per the COVID-19 regime laid down by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu WP(C) 1/2020 and adopted by the Gauhati High Court.

Despite this, he was picked up again in May 2025, with no indication of breach of bail terms, nor any fresh judicial order.

Petitioner seeks bail restoration

Advocate Das emphasised that the present writ petition was not only seeking to trace Abdul Sheikh’s location, but also challenging the legality of re-detention, since there had been full compliance with bail requirements. The petitioner demanded that his father be restored to bail, given that there had been no breach of bail conditions, and that he had been detained again without justification.

The Court, instead of passing immediate orders on bail, directed the FT counsel to transmit the court’s order to the SP (Border), Chirang, with the specific instruction to verify the claim of regular weekly reporting by Abdul Sheikh since his release in April 2021.

Court’s Direction: Verification of weekly attendance

Taking this into account, the Court directed that:

• The FT counsel shall transmit the court’s order to the SP (Border), Chirang);
• The SP (Border) is to verify whether Abdul Sheikh was regularly reporting to the police station pursuant to his release on April 30, 2021;
• The matter will now be listed on June 25, 2025, for further orders after verification.

The Court made no decision yet on the prayer for restoration of bail, but the verification of compliance with earlier judicially sanctioned liberty now becomes the centrepiece of the case.

The order may be viewed here:

Background: Release on COVID bail, and return to custody without notice

Abdul Sheikh was declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal, and was detained in a detention centre for over two years. He was released on April 30, 2021, under a High Court order dated April 15, 2020, based on the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 directions for decongestion.

Like many similarly placed detainees, he had continued to report weekly to the local police station, without violation. Yet in May 2025, he was suddenly picked up again and transferred to the Kokrajhar Holding Centre, with no cancellation of his bail and no production before a magistrate.

His family filed a writ petition in May. At the June 9 hearing, the State confirmed that Abdul Sheikh was currently lodged at the Kokrajhar Holding Centre. The High Court granted visitation rights, allowing Sanidul Sheikh and up to two family members to meet him. The Court also permitted the family to obtain his signature on a vakalatnama to formalize legal representation.

This is one of several petitions now before the High Court involving similar circumstances wherein COVID-era bail beneficiaries who continued to report regularly to police but were picked up again, allegedly without warrants, production, or even basic disclosure to families.

Related:

Gauhati HC: Union government admits Samsul Ali was handed over to BSF, Court grants family visitation rights if not yet deported

The Immigrant Expulsion from Assam Act, 1950: Re-evaluating executive powers in light of judicial pronouncements and due process

Gauhati HC orders verification of police attendance records in re-arrest of two bail-compliant detainees in Torap Ali case

Gauhati HC grants visitation rights after state confirms Doyjan Bibi is in Kokrajhar Holding Centre

“Illegal detention not even for a minute”: Gauhati HC orders immediate release of bail-compliant detainee in Assam

The post Gauhati HC seeks report on detained Abdul Sheikh’s weekly police appearances in compliance with bail conditions appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On June 20, the Gauhati High Court was confronted with a stunning reversal in a case it has been monitoring closely for nearly a month. Samsul Ali, a 62-year-old resident of Chirang district, whom the State had officially claimed to have handed over to the Border Security Force (BSF) during the earlier hearing, was reported by his family to have been found unconscious in Bijni town.

Appearing before the Division Bench of Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Malasri Nandi, the counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Mrinmoy Das, submitted that Samsul Ali had been found in an unconscious state in Bijni town two or three days ago, and was brought home by villagers. He is currently at home, Das said, and is prepared to appear before any authority as required.

The revelation came in the hearing of Writ Petition filed by his son Bakkar Ali, who had approached the High Court after Samsul was picked up by Border Police on May 25, 2025 and subsequently went missing for weeks. This statement directly contradicted the State’s previous claim—recorded in Court orders dated June 9 and 10—that Samsul had been formally handed over to the BSF Sector Headquarters in Panbari, Dhubri, on May 26, 2025. (Details of the previous hearings may be read here and here.) CJP has been providing legal aid to the petitioner in the present case.

Now, with Samsul Ali found unconscious in Assam, and with no explanation from the State, the Court is faced with a chilling question: What really happened to him after he was “handed over”?

Petitioner: “He was found unconscious in Bijni, and he’s now back home”

Appearing before the Division Bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Malasri Nandi, Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta, counsel for the petitioner, stated:

“The detained person who was said to be handed over to the BSF has been recovered unconscious in Bijni. He is now home. The villagers brought him back. We are filing an affidavit. He will be produced wherever required.”

The Court acknowledged the update and asked that an affidavit be filed at the earliest to formally place this development on record.

High Court: “If he was handed over to BSF, how did he end up in Bijni?”

The Bench, visibly troubled by the State’s silence, remarked: “Get information. If he was handed over, how could he be found elsewhere?”

The State had earlier maintained through oral submissions that Samsul handed over by Assam Police to the Border Security Force (BSF) Sector Headquarters at Panbari on May 26, 2025, in accordance with instructions received by the FT counsel. But this new development throws that version into serious doubt.

A Constitutional Dilemma: Whether to protect or provoke retaliatory detention

The petitioner’s counsel urged the Court to grant interim protection from detention, arguing that Samsul had already been held for three years before being released on bail under the bail regime outlined by the Supreme Court in SCLSC v. Union of India (2019), releasing long-term detenues on bail and that he had complied with police reporting conditions ever since. It had been provided that with his last appearance logged on May 21, 2025 — just four days before his pickup.

“The State has a duty to follow procedure. The man was on bail for years. He was reporting to the Police Station regularly,” said the counsel.

However, the Bench hesitated. It acknowledged a fear that granting a direction for explanation or protection might lead the authorities to re-detain Samsul Ali immediately, using the argument that he had “absconded from the BSF holding.”

“I’m just thinking… The State said he was given to the BSF. Now he’s home. If we pass an order now, the authorities will say he absconded. He will be re-arrested,” Justice Surana observed. “Think over it.”

The petitioner’s counsel was granted a short recess to consider how to proceed.

Counsel: “We are asking the state to follow the law”

After resuming, Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta clarified:

“We are not saying he cannot be deported. But even the State, in earlier affidavits, has set out the procedure: diplomatic coordination, consular confirmation, valid travel documents. None of that was followed here.”

To a light remark by the Bench comparing the case to U.S. deportations, he responded:

“In the U.S., they didn’t deport people in secret. The person was escorted to the airport, and the receiving country received them openly. What happened here is fundamentally different.”

The petitioner’s counsel informed the Court that Samsul Ali was now safe at home and would be produced before any authority as required, but urged the Court to ensure no further detention or coercive action is taken against him, given the extraordinary circumstances.

Final Order: Appear before SP (Border), deportation only through proper procedure

The Court issued a cautiously worded but clear direction:

• Samsul Ali is to appear before the Superintendent of Police (Border), Chirang, to record his presence;
• The petitioner will file an affidavit formally recording the reappearance of Samsul Ali and the events surrounding it;
• The respondents are to file the older court orders and explain their position on how a person allegedly handed over to the BSF was found unconscious in a village in Assam;
• The Court recorded that in the event any steps are taken toward deportation, the proper procedure must be followed — including any process laid down in earlier State affidavits or relevant law;
• The matter is now listed for July 16, 2025.

Importantly, while the Court did not grant interim protection against re-detention, expressing concern that a formal direction might be contradictory to the law, it implicitly warned that deportation attempts without due process would violate the law. Such due process would, in all likelihood, also involve recalling the order releasing Samsul Ali on bail in 2019.

The order of the Gauhati High Court may be read below.

Due process before deportation has been recently spelt out, again, in the ongoing Rajubala case in the Supreme Court of India (pending since 2021). The process includes specifically:

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

This means that late night sweeps, expulsions and cloak and dagger procedures have been clearly prohibited.

Background: Three years in detention, bail and then disappearance

Samsul Ali had earlier been declared a foreigner by an FT, but was released on bail in 2019 after completing three years in detention, under directions issued by the Supreme Court — even before the COVID-19 pandemic. His bail required regular reporting to the police, and it was uncontested that he had complied with those conditions.

On May 25, 2025, Samsul was suddenly picked up from his home in Chirang district. No arrest memo was issued, and his whereabouts remained unknown for days. When his son filed the present writ petition, the State initially refused to disclose any information. Only after repeated court hearings did the FT counsel submit that Samsul had been “handed over to BSF Panbari” on May 26, yet no deportation memo, documentation, or diplomatic clearance was presented.

Timeline of the case

This case has seen incremental disclosures over successive hearings:

• May 25, 2025: Samsul Ali, a declared foreigner who had been released on conditional bail since 2020, was picked up from his residence in Goraimari No. 2, Chirang, around 11:30 PM, without a warrant, memo of arrest, or cancellation of bail.

• June 9, 2025: The State counsel submitted for the first time that Samsul Ali had been “handed over to the BSF,” but failed to provide any documentation, location, or handover memorandum. The Court criticised this procedural opacity and ordered the SP (Border), Chirang to cooperate with the FT counsel and supply all relevant information via WhatsApp. (Details of the said proceeding may be read here.)

• June 10, 2025: The State confirmed in court that Samsul Ali was handed over to the BSF Sector HQ at Panbari on May 26. On this basis, the Court passed a direction that, if Samsul Ali has not yet been deported, the head of the Sector Headquarters shall permit the petitioner and one family member to visit him and obtain his signature on a vakalatnama. If he has been deported, the authorities must inform the petitioner of the exact location from which the deportation took place.

A case that challenges the integrity of deportation procedures

The present Writ Petition has exposed what appears to be a pattern of covert or undocumented deportation attempts of Bengali-speaking Muslims in Assam, outside the knowledge of family, without judicial oversight, and without procedural safeguards.

Samsul Ali’s case is now a rare, perhaps the first instance where a person claimed by the State to have been “handed over to the BSF” has resurfaced, unconscious and abandoned, raising serious concerns about what transpired during the purported handover and the situation in which the detained person was kept.

His reappearance — undocumented, unexplained, and entirely outside formal processes — raises questions of constitutional proportions: Was there an attempt to deport without following legal procedure? Was the man pushed across the border without clearance? Was there a failure of coordination? Or something worse? With the next hearing scheduled for July 16, the Gauhati High Court may be called upon to address not just one case of illegal custody — but the growing evidence of a shadow deportation regime operating outside the bounds of Indian constitutional law.

Related:

Gauhati HC: Union government admits Samsul Ali was handed over to BSF, Court grants family visitation rights if not yet deported

The Immigrant Expulsion from Assam Act, 1950: Re-evaluating executive powers in light of judicial pronouncements and due process

Gauhati HC orders verification of police attendance records in re-arrest of two bail-compliant detainees in Torap Ali case

Gauhati HC grants visitation rights after state confirms Doyjan Bibi is in Kokrajhar Holding Centre

“Illegal detention not even for a minute”: Gauhati HC orders immediate release of bail-compliant detainee in Assam

The post Gauhati HC orders state to explain how a man deemed to be “handed over to BSF” is found unconscious in a village in Assam appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The High Court bench comprising Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Malasri Nandi made clear that “illegal detention cannot be allowed even for a minute,” and refused the State’s request for an adjournment, stating that failure to obtain timely instructions could not be a ground to delay liberty.

This order came after three rounds of hearings in the habeas corpus petition filed by Mozida Begum, the detainee’s mother, who had approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging her son’s sudden re-arrest and incommunicado detention. In the previous hearings on June 6 and June 11, the Court had established that:

• The detainee was being held at the Kokrajhar Holding Centre;
• The Court had stayed any deportation;
• His attendance at Goalpara Police Station on May 5, 12, and 19 had been recorded and submitted as Annexure 4;
• The Goalpara PS was directed to verify the attendance sheet, and the State was directed to respond.

June 16, 2025: Court orders immediate release

Today, at the third hearing of the case, the State had sought an adjournment, saying instructions had not yet been received. The counsel requested the matter be listed on Wednesday (June 18). But the bench firmly declined, stating that the liberty of a person cannot be delayed for want of bureaucratic coordination.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate A.R. Sikdar objected to the request for adjournment. He submitted that:

• The purpose of the hearing was to decide on the release of a person already granted bail;
• The detenu had complied with every condition laid out in the 2021 bail order;
• His arrest and continued detention violated the earlier High Court order, as well as Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution;
• The writ petition challenging the FT order remained pending, and hence no finality could be claimed in terms of nationality or removal proceedings.

He asked the Court to order Hasinur’s immediate release from custody, arguing that continued detention was both unconstitutional and unjustified.

The bench responded with unequivocal concern for the deprivation of liberty: “We are releasing him because this will be illegal detention. Not even for a moment we will wait.”

Justice Surana made clear that the Court would not delay protection of liberty merely due to bureaucratic inaction: “You should have gotten instructions if you wanted. We will not even wait till 2 o’clock. Once there is bail, if they do not give you instructions, it is their lookout.”

The Court further stated that if the State truly believed there were grounds to re-arrest the detenu, it should have moved an interlocutory application (IA) to cancel the bail or obtained a fresh judicial order. Without that, the State had no authority to hold him.

“If you wanted to arrest him after the COVID bail, you could have moved an I.A. Let the State move an application for recall if they want. We’ll hear it at 2. But right now, we are granting bail.”

Based on the above arguments, the Court stated that:

• That bail had been granted and remained valid;
• That attendance had been recorded and verified;
• That no cancellation of bail or new proceedings had been initiated;
• And that continued detention was “expressly illegal.”

Order issued by the Court: The Court dictated the following in its written order:

• Recalled that bail had been granted to Hasinur on June 7, 2021, by a division bench under the Supreme Court’s suo moto COVID-19 bail guidelines;
• Noted that the bail order required weekly reporting, which the petitioner had complied with, supported by Annexure 4, a police attendance sheet verified by Goalpara PS;
• Reaffirmed that the FT opinion declaring him a foreigner remains under judicial challenge;
• Emphasised that no cancellation of bail had occurred, and that no fresh detention order had been passed;
• Held that the continued detention of Hasinur was “expressly illegal”.

“It becomes the duty of the Court to protect the fundamental rights of the detained person. The arrest of a person already on bail amounts to overreach of the State. Illegal detention cannot be allowed even for a minute,” the Bench had said during the hearing.

Directions issued by the Court: The Court then issued the following directions:

1. The Officer-in-Charge of the Kokrajhar Holding Centre shall immediately release Hasinur from detention;
2. The Superintendent of Police (Border), Goalpara is directed to ensure compliance with the Court’s order;
3. In the event the State believes there is compelling reason to detain him, it may move for recall of the bail order or file an appropriate application under law;
4. The case is listed for June 20, 2025, for the State to report compliance with the release directions.

The Court’s order emphatically stated that even a minute of unlawful detention was impermissible, and rebuked the failure of the relevant department to provide timely instructions to the FT counsel.

Background: Bail, compliance, and sudden pickup

Hachinur had been declared a foreigner by an FT order prior to 2021. He was released on conditional bail on June 7, 2021, by a division bench of the Gauhati High Court, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s directions in Suo Moto WP(C) No. 1/2020 concerning COVID-related decongestion of detention centres. The release order, like others under the COVID regime, required weekly reporting to the local police station.

Between 2021 and 2025, Hachinur had consistently complied with this requirement. In the weeks leading up to his detention, his attendance at Goalpara Police Station was recorded on May 5, May 12, and May 19, 2025, as per an attendance sheet signed by police officers, annexed to the writ petition as Annexure 4.

Yet, on May 25, 2025, he was picked up from his residence by Border Police personnel. He was first taken to the Goalpara Police Reserve, then reportedly shifted to Matia Transit Camp, and ultimately lodged in the Kokrajhar Holding Centre — his location remaining unknown to his family until it was disclosed in court on June 6.

June 6, 2025: Habeas petition admitted; deportation stayed

On June 6, the High Court heard the matter for the first time. At that stage, the State and FT counsel failed to disclose any valid reason for the detention, but confirmed that Hachinur was being held at Kokrajhar Holding Centre, not Matia. On that basis, the Court:

• Issued notice on the writ petition;
• Directed that no deportation shall be carried out without the Court’s permission;
• Permitted two family members to visit the detainee in custody;
• Ordered that the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Border), Kamrup Metro, be informed, and that the detention centre receive the order for implementation.

This interim order gave the family its first opportunity to confirm that Hachinur was alive and accessible — reportedly following nearly two weeks of silence from authorities and a refusal by local police to accept an FIR.

(Details of June 6 hearing may be read here.)

June 11, 2025: Court flags potential illegality of detention

At the next hearing, on June 11, Advocate A.R. Sikdar, for the petitioner, submitted that he had met with Hachinur at the holding centre and reiterated that the detainee was bail-compliant. He sought restoration of liberty in light of the fact that the Foreigners Tribunal opinion against him was under challenge in WP(C) 2546/2020, and there was no revocation of bail nor any fresh order warranting arrest.

The FT counsel requested time, indicating that instructions would be received soon. However, the Court made it clear that the matter could not be indefinitely delayed, and stated:

“If he was complying with his bail conditions, detention may be illegal.”

Accordingly, the Court:

• Ordered that Annexure 4 (police attendance sheet) be verified by the Officer-in-Charge, Goalpara PS;
• Directed petitioner’s counsel to send a soft copy of the petition and annexure to the FT counsel;
• Instructed that the FT counsel email the documents to the Goalpara SP (Border) and the OC of Goalpara PS for verification;
• Fixed the next hearing for June 16, while maintaining the earlier direction against deportation.

Detailed report may be read here.

Significance: A judicial stand against state overreach in citizenship matters

The order in Mozida Begum v. Union of India is a resounding judicial affirmation of constitutional due process in a context where dozens of similarly placed individuals — Bengali-speaking Muslims previously released on COVID bail — have allegedly been picked up without warrant, notice, or legal recourse.

It demonstrates that:

• Bail is not symbolic: Once granted, it protects liberty unless formally revoked.
• Arrest without legal authority is unconstitutional, even for those declared “foreigners.”
• Pending writ petitions against FT declarations must be respected, especially where the State has not succeeded in upholding those opinions.
• And that access to police records (like attendance sheets) and visitation rights matter deeply in reasserting legal agency.

The Gauhati High Court’s refusal to adjourn, even briefly, and its framing of the arrest as “overreach” sets a vital precedent for similar cases emerging across Assam.

Related:

Gauhati HC questions legal basis of re-detention of bail-compliant detainee, orders verification of police attendance record

Seeking sanctuary, facing scrutiny: Why India must revisit its approach to the displaced

Gauhati HC: Union government admits Samsul Ali was handed over to BSF, Court grants family visitation rights if not yet deported

Holding centres, missing memos, and silent transfers: Gauhati HC hears 5 petitions filed by families of Bengali-speaking Muslim detainees in Assam

India: A deep dive into the legal obligations before “deportation”

CJP submits supplementary memo to NHRC with survivor and family testimonies on Assam’s expulsions of Bengali-speaking Muslims

The post “Illegal detention cannot be allowed even for a minute”: Gauhati HC orders release of Goalpara man picked up despite complying with bail conditions appeared first on SabrangIndia.

However, throughout the day, during the one-day session, opposition MLAs and the Chief Minister engaged in a heated discussion on the contentious topic of citizenship: the speeches and deliberations centred around the manner in which the Assam police have been forcibly detaining people in the state in late night operations, wrongly dubbing them as “foreigners” since May 24/25, 2025. Under state target have been especially Bengali-speaking Muslims who have been –without recourse to due process –expelled to no man’s land, many of them have subsequently even returned home.

Leader of the Opposition in the Assembly, Debabrata Saikia led the charge by moving a motion in the Legislative Assembly, prompting the Chief Minister to respond. Several opposition MLA then took the floor, voicing their concerns and perspectives on the issue. The chief minister Himanta Biswas Sarma attempted to project himself as a saviour of the Assamese speaking communities, pushing the blame on previous Congress governments. This angered several members of the Opposition who took him on, point by point, in detail. They pointed out that the first declaration of ‘D-Voter’ (Doubtful Voter) took place in 1997 when the government was ruled by Prafulla Mahanta of the AGP (Asom Gana Parishad). Sarma also gave incorrect information in the House that the practice of creation of D-Voters was begun during the time of Hiteswar Saikia (Former Congress chief minister of Assam, who is also father of Debabrata Saikia), but the fact is that Hiteswar Saikia was died on April 11, 1996 and the practice of D-voters was started from 1997.

Himanta also defended the moves saying that the “push” was taking place in accordance with the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Order, 1950 and a recent Supreme Court order. Incidentally, the Citizens for Justice and Peace has in memorandum to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) detailed how no procedures at all were followed by the authorities while they conducted the recent drives. These may be read here and here.

Meanwhile, the members of the opposition were vociferous in the tactics being employed by the authorities, urging that, any foreigners identified in the state, who have entered after 1971 (the cut-off date in Assam Accord) should be sent abroad (deported) according to provisions of law and procedure and any repatriation agreement with neighbouring countries, however the hounding and torture of poor, innocent Indians under the slur/label of being “Bangladeshi” must be stopped.

The entire speech of the LoP in the Assam Assembly, Debabrata Saikia is being reproduced here:

Monday, June 9, 2005

“We all know that Assam Movement was held to expel foreigners and after the Assam Accord of 1985, among all clauses, Clause 5 was very important. (This is) because it talks about the identification of foreigners and (the process to be followed) to expel foreigners from India.

And to carry this out smoothly, NRC updation process was undertaken on the base of 1951 NRC. And, finally, in the year 2013, SC directed (the Assam government) to update the NRC in Assam.  And finally we have the final draft of the NRC dated August 31, 2019.

On July 22, 2018, through a press conference, the then Home minister Rajnath Singh said that even after the final NRC, Foreigners Tribunal will detect the citizenship of people. He also said that any person’s name that has been dropped out from the final draft of NRC, (even) he or she can appeal. When the draft was published, it was seen that 19 lakh people were excluded from the NRC. At the time, Rajnath Singh also announced that a ‘Rejection slip’ will be provided to (ensure that people undergo process) to include their name in the NRC and if needed Goverment will provide the legal aid.

Later also, (with a change of guard) the Home Minister, Amit Shah said that all help will be provided to the people left out from the NRC and only foreigners tribunal will decide on the citizenship. No person should think themselves as outsider, until or unless Foreigners Tribunal take a decision on this, he had said.

The Supreme Court (SC) also declared that in the judgement of Abdul Kuddus that if any person was declared as foreigner he can approach the High Court or Supreme Court in appeal.

After the release of the final draft list of the NRC, government authorities announced that 200 Special tribunals would be set up. However, in October 2023, 3,34,964 cases were reportedly disposed off by the tribunals, 96,146 cases are still ongoing in the FTs. A total of 10, 3764 people were reportedly declared foreigners.

However after the release of the Final Draft of the NRC (August 31, 2019), the government did not provide the rejection slip to those excluded from the list. And it is these who are facing many challenges challenge due to not being enrolled in the NRC. They are facing problems of Aadhaar card exclusion and exclusion from government welfare schemes because “only citizens can avail welfare of the state.”

Recently the Assam Government has “pushed back” more than 100 people based –ostensibly– on a judgement of the SC. People were (simply) left in the No Man’s land. Almost 1200 people were sent, possibly 1000 people didn’t come back but those sent from Assam were taken back again (this was in the context of persons sent from Gujarat, Delhi, etc.)

The Union Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar had said, when Indians were repatriated from America or at other times, according to the rules and regulations, no one should be considered a foreigner until proven so. The suffering inflicted on Indian citizens in Assam by labelling them as foreigners has been highlighted in the recent declaration.

Therefore, we demand that, rejection slips should be given through the National Register of Citizens (NRC) process. And, through the legal process, foreigners should be identified and those who are Indians should be included. According to a report of CJP (Citizens for Justice and Peace), during the NRC process in 2019, around 60 people in Assam attempted suicide due to various fears and trauma. Among them, 32 were Hindus and the rest belonged to other religions.

One such tragic incident was of a highly educated individual from Kharupetia, who held MA, LLB, and BT degrees, and worked as a teacher. He was subjected to constant taunts and comments like ‘Look Bangladeshi has come’ while walking on the streets or at market, which led him to take his own life in 2018 due to extreme fear and anxiety.

Recently, Sonabhanu from Barpeta was left in no man’s land in May (2025) while her appeal was still pending in the Supreme Court. Additionally, 51-year-old Khairul Islam from Morigaon was declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal and the High Court, and he has filed an appeal in the Supreme Court.

There are many such people for whom the verdict has not been delivered yet they have become victim of the government’s moves. Besides, the statement that citizenship will be granted based on a particular religion to those who are Bangladeshi, under the Citizenship Amendment Act 2014, which was mentioned in 2019, has brought shame to many. This is evident from the suicide of Nirad Baran Das ((On October 20, 2918 tragedy struck Kharupetia town in Darrang district of Assam, when a retired school teacher and advocate Nirod Baran Das “took his life by hanging himself to a fan in his home.” CJP’s report had stated that Das had become “fearful and insecure of being arrested, wrested of his citizenship, declared a non-Indian, took his own life after hanging himself from a fan in his home”, claiming, NRC had declared him a foreigner even though “he was born and brought up in the town where he taught” and was in “possession of all the legacy documents.”))

.Therefore (we demand), that the process (of expelling foreigners) should be carried out as per the Assam Accord. The manner in which (Indians), who are “merely suspected” as D-Voters (Doubtful Voters), are declared foreigners by the Foreigners Tribunal, and later proved not to be foreigners in the High Court – this process needs to be more realistic so that people are not wrongly labelled as foreigners.

Other interventions by opposition members in the Assam legislative assembly on June 9:

• Jakir Hussain Sikdar, MLA from the Sarukhetri Assembly constituency, and Assam Pradesh Congress Working President said, “The government’s foreigner identification process is fundamentally flawed. Identifying individuals without sufficient information and evidence is entirely incorrect. The government’s misguided decisions are wrongly labelling Indian citizens as foreigners.”
• Nurul Huda, MLA, Indian National Congress (INC) from the Rupohihat Assembly constituency said that the unlawful targeting of ordinary Indian people as foreigners is unacceptable,’ he said, cautioning that continued police harassment without due process will undermine faith in the Indian judiciary.
• Ashraful Hussain, AIUDF MLA from Chenga Assembly constituency stated that the Foreigners Tribunals in Assam operate under the direct influence of the state government, with the Home Department dictating their actions. He expressed deep concern that selectively targeting indigenous people based on religion, language, and race would be utterly unfortunate.

In his replies to the Opposition members, chief minister of Assam, Himanta Biswa Sarma stated that Government does not need to take NRC as reference for deportation of foreigners. He self-abrogated the powers to deport to the District Collector and myself, legally or illegally! He added, “We will further expedite the issue of foreign extradition in accordance with the Supreme Court’s judgment. All those who came after 1971 are foreigners.”

When the Opposition rebutted stating that many who were forcibly deported have returned, an unreptentant Himanta said, “”We have pushed back about 330 people, none of them have returned and there is no question of them coming back, and this push back will increase further.”  He added, “There are 35 more ready (to be sent): I will send them too (uses un-parliamentary language) “. He also mocked Congress for starting evictions, tribal belts and blocks, D-voters, detention camps, etc., and said that he is trying to do all these things now. He also claimed that like Prafulla Mahanta (former CM) who created D-Voters, he has garnered votes on the question of “expelling foreigners.” I on the other hand, am working for my ideology and that of my party (BJP) which is different. Sarma also made a rather outlandish claim, “Today the Deputy Speaker of Assam Assembly told me that I also have the power to review FT orders, so I will also make anyone who has been made Indian into a foreigner!.. “After Bimala Prasad Chaliha (Former CM of Assam), I am the only Chief Minister who has been able to make any foreign investments.”

At this point Akhil Gogoi Independent MLA from the Raijor Dol from the Sibsagar Assembly Constituency intervened, “It would be better if you spoke like a Chief Minister, please speak like a Chief Minister.” To which Sarma replied, “I want to speak like an Assamese.” He added, “I am the Chief Minister later, but I am an Assamese first. Whatever I say, I will say it like an Assamese, like a proud Assamese.”

Akhil Gogoi said, “You are not a proud Assamese, you are a Big Zero. In your day you could not send a single foreigner (out) legally, what you did you have sent illegally.” Himanta replied,”I will send legally and I will send illegally, yes I will send illegally. ”

Related:

Union Govt admits handover of Samsul Ali to BSF, Gauhati High Court grants family visitation rights if not yet deported

Does India have a lawfully established procedure on ‘deportation’, or are actions governed by Executive secrecy and overreach?

Assam: Academics, lawyers, activists condemn ‘push back’ of persons to Bangladesh

The post Assam: Stormy one day Assembly session, LoP Debabrata Saikia compels CM Himanta Sarma to respond appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In the hearings of the petition filed by Bakkar Ali regarding the recent allegedly secret detention of his father Samsul Ali, the counsel for Union of India today –June 10– told Gauhati High Court the father was formally handed over by Assam Police to the Border Security Force (BSF) Sector Headquarters at Panbari on May 26, 2025. The disclosure came nearly two weeks after Samsul Ali was allegedly picked up from his residence in Chirang district during a late-night operation on May 25, without any arrest memo, warrant, or court production — prompting his family to move the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The last hearing in the matter was yesterday, June 9, and a report on the last hearing may be read here.

In the most recent order passed today by the bench of Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and N. Unni Krishnan Nair, the Court directed that, if Samsul Ali has not yet been deported, the head of the BSF Sector Headquarters shall permit the petitioner and one family member to visit him, and facilitate the execution of a vakalatnama to allow continued legal representation. In the event that deportation has already taken place, the authorities have been instructed to disclose the exact location from which the deportation occurred.

The case — in which legal aid is being provided by Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) — is part of a growing number of petitions being filed in the Gauhati High Court, where families allege that Bengali-speaking Muslims previously released on bail after FT declarations are being secretly re-detained and, in some cases, deported without judicial oversight. These cases share a recurring pattern: midnight pickups, non-disclosure of custody, denial of access to legal remedies, and procedural opacity in handovers to BSF or other agencies.

Today’s order builds on yesterday’s hearing in the matter, which took place on June 9, in which the High Court had criticised the State’s failure to provide any documentation about the transfer to BSF. While it has declined, for now, to direct the Union of India to file a formal affidavit, the Court has kept the petition alive — leaving open the door for further relief if deportation is confirmed or if any adverse development occurs. The matter is next listed for June 20, 2025. (Details of the earlier proceeding may be read here.)

Meanwhile, through independent social media sources, CJP has found Samsul Ali in a distraught condition may be in No Man’s land between the two countries. See the memorandums submitted to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) on the question here and here.

From Secrecy to Disclosure: The three-stage legal timeline of the case

This case has seen incremental disclosures over successive hearings:

• May 25, 2025: Samsul Ali, a declared foreigner who had been released on conditional bail since 2020, was picked up from his residence in Goraimari No. 2, Chirang, around 11:30 PM, without a warrant, memo of arrest, or cancellation of bail.

• June 9, 2025: The State counsel submitted for the first time that Samsul Ali had been “handed over to the BSF,” but failed to provide any documentation, location, or handover memorandum. The Court criticised this procedural opacity and ordered the SP (Border), Chirang to cooperate with the FT counsel and supply all relevant information via WhatsApp. (Details of the said proceeding may be read here.)

• June 10, 2025: The State confirmed in court that Samsul Ali was handed over to the BSF Sector HQ at Panbari on May 26. On this basis, the Court passed a direction that, if Samsul Ali has not yet been deported, the head of the Sector Headquarters shall permit the petitioner and one family member to visit him and obtain his signature on a vakalatnama. If he has been deported, the authorities must inform the petitioner of the exact location from which the deportation took place.

Petition remains pending, keeps door open for further relief

During today’s hearing, Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta, appearing for the petitioner, requested that the Union of India be directed to file an affidavit detailing whether Samsul Ali has been deported and, if so, on what legal and factual basis. The Court, however, declined to issue such a direction at this stage, noting that a large number of similar cases are now being filed, and that such a step would not be feasible in every matter.

That said, the petition has not been dismissed. The Court clarified that if the petitioner faces any adverse consequence — such as confirmed deportation — the said may be informed to the Court immediately. It also indicated that a report would be called for if deportation has indeed taken place, keeping the petition procedurally alive and legally relevant.

The matter is now listed for further hearing on June 20, 2025.

Background: Bail compliance, FT order, and the alleged procedural bypass

Samsul Ali was declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal, Chirang in 2016. He spent more than three years in detention before being released in February 2020 under the bail regime outlined by the Supreme Court in SCLSC v. Union of India (2019). Since his release, he had been reporting weekly to the Police Station, with his last appearance logged on May 21, 2025 — just four days before his pickup.

His family maintains that he was detained without documentation, never produced before a magistrate, and that police allegedly refused to accept an FIR, forcing them to send complaints by registered post. When no official information was forthcoming, the family had filed the said habeas corpus petition — which has since led to successive disclosures culminating in today’s order.

The FT order under which he was declared a foreigner is not based on any proof of border crossing or foreign documentation, and does not establish nationality in any other country. The family alleges that Samsul Ali has been rendered stateless, and that deportation without formal diplomatic clearance and nationality verification would be illegal.

Visitation to BSF: A notable legal step

While courts have regularly granted visitation rights to families of detainees held in civil detention centres, today’s order granting visitation rights to a person in BSF custody at a Sector Headquarters is notable. It affirms that even in border security operations, access to family and legal counsel cannot be arbitrarily denied, especially when the legal status of the person’s custody or deportation is under judicial review.

It also sets a precedent for ensuring access and due process even in cases where the handover to BSF is claimed, but documentation is missing or incomplete — a frequent concern raised in recent petitions alleging pushbacks across the Indo-Bangladesh border.

The petition will be taken up again on June 20, by which time it may become clear whether:

• Samsul Ali remains within the jurisdiction of Indian authorities;
• He has been deported, and if so, under what procedures;
• His family has been permitted to meet him and secure his legal signature.

The case remains a significant test of procedural safeguards, executive accountability, and the right to challenge arbitrary detention and removal, particularly in Assam’s fraught citizenship regime.

The order may be read below.

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 Union Govt admits handover of Samsul Ali to BSF, Gauhati High Court grants family visitation rights if not yet deported appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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.

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!

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.

The order may be viewed below:

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.

The order may be viewed below:

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.

The order may be viewed below:

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.

The order may be viewed below:

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.

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 Petitions multiply in Gauhati High Court as “Declared Foreigners” out on bail go missing; 4 out of 5 reported to be in holding centre, 1 “handed over” to BSF appeared first on SabrangIndia.