From “D-Voter” to Tribunal notice

Born on July 20, 1979 in village Kherbari Pt-IV, Dhubri district, Assam, Jarina Bibi is the daughter of late Jabed Ali and Janmati Bibi. Her family’s roots in Assam stretch back generations: her grandparents Meheddi Munshi (also known as Mohor Uddin Munshi) and Jamiran Bibi were recorded in the 1966 electoral rolls; her father Jabed Ali appeared in the 1970 rolls; and her mother remains a regular voter even today.

Yet, despite this, Jarina’s name was arbitrarily marked with the “D” (doubtful) voter tag. A Suspected Foreigner notice followed—turning her life upside down. For her husband, Mojammal Haque, a migrant worker, challenging the notice in court initially felt impossible due to lack of awareness and resources. Fear and despair gripped the family. 

CJP Assam Team with Jarina Bibi outside her home

CJP steps in

The turning point came when CJP’s Dhubri District Volunteer Motivator Habibul Bepari and Assam State In-charge Nanda Ghosh stepped in. With the guidance of Advocate Ishkendar Azad, CJP assisted the family in gathering and authenticating documents, many of which were beyond their immediate reach due to poverty and illiteracy.

CJP secured:

• Electoral rolls from 1966, 1970, 1989, and 1997 proving the voting history of her grandparents, parents, and even Jarina herself.
• Land and revenue records confirming holdings of her father and grandfather.
• A Gaon Panchayat certificate (2015), later authenticated in court, linking Jarina to her father, Jabed Ali.
• Testimony of her mother, Janmati Bibi, who stood before the Tribunal and confirmed her daughter’s lineage.

These efforts were crucial in overcoming the structural hurdles of proving “linkage”—a recurring difficulty for women in Assam who often lack formal education, land in their names, or school records. As CJP’s work shows, legal aid often requires not just documents but also counselling, persuasion, and persistence to ensure families do not give up.

The Tribunal’s legal findings

The Final Order of March 10, 2025, delivered by FT Member Kirti Kamal Das, demonstrates how strong evidence, when properly marshalled, can withstand scrutiny:

• The Tribunal held that Jarina’s parental linkage with late Jabed Ali was “adequately established”, supported both by her mother’s oral testimony (DW-2) and documentary evidence.
• The Election Officer’s verification report (20 August 2024) confirmed the authenticity of electoral rolls dating back to 1966, validating the family’s continuous presence in Assam.
• Land documents and revenue receipts corroborated long-standing residence.
• The Tribunal emphasized that under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, the burden of proof rests on the proceedee. Jarina successfully discharged this burden by producing reliable and trustworthy records.

The Tribunal thus concluded:

“From the above context, it appears that the pleadings of Proceedee and her exhibited documents are being substantiated each other which demonstrate that Proceedee’s ancestor were genuine Indian nationals and the Proceedee being a descendant of genuine Indian cannot be termed as illegal migrant as alleged.”

“Thus, in consideration of entirety of documents produced, it appears that the Proceedee or her ancestors had not illegally entered into the territory of India or the State of Assam, as suspected.”

“The documents have been found to be reliable, trustworthy and acceptable being in order and having been issued by the proper authorities and as such, proved. The documents have thus got evidentiary value. The Pròceedee from all possible aspects of the matter, cannot be termed or declared to be a foreigner of the stream Post 1971 or any other stream under the law. The Proceedee has been able to discharge the burden cast on her under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 to prove the fact that she is not a foreigner under the law.”

Accordingly, the reference was dismissed, and Jarina was declared an Indian citizen.

The human cost of citizenship battles

Behind this legal triumph lies years of trauma. Jarina’s mother, Janmati Bibi, described the fear of losing her daughter: “I will be with you in jail,” she told her, resigned to the idea of wrongful detention. She wept at night, fearing deportation, and expressed relief only after the Tribunal’s judgment: “We were born here and we will die here.”

Jarina herself admitted to sleepless nights, haunted by news of detentions and deportations. Like many women in Assam, especially Muslim, she paid the price of a flawed system—enduring years of uncertainty, stigma, and humiliation before proving what should never have been in doubt. The mental toll, financial burden, and humiliation suffered by families like Jarina’s remain invisible in official records.

Jarina Bibi with her family, holding the order that declares her Indian

Why this case matters

The declaration of Jarina Bibi as Indian is not just a personal relief but a testament to the resilience of marginalized communities when supported with legal aid. It underscores:

1. The centrality of Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946—which unfairly reverses the burden of proof onto the accused, making legal assistance indispensable.
2. The evidentiary value of electoral rolls, land records, and Panchayat certificates, when corroborated by oral testimony.
3. The indispensable role of organizations like CJP in bridging the gap between law and access to justice for poor, illiterate, and socially disadvantaged citizens.

On September 7, 2025, CJP handed over the Tribunal’s order to Jarina and her family. For the first time in years, smiles returned to their faces. As rain poured that day, Jarina stepped out into the street to bid farewell to the CJP team, her joy and gratitude visible—a small but profound symbol of justice reclaimed.

The complete order may be read here.

Related:

Tragic victory: Citizenship restored for Assam’s Sabaruddin after his passing

Assam citizenship crisis: Aadhaar and the shadows of exclusion and administrative labyrinth

Assam detention camps tighten rules, leaving families struggling to visit loved ones detained in Matia transit camp

Eviction tragedy in Assam: Two killed during eviction drive as police firing sparks allegations of government bias

Assam government introduces stricter Aadhaar rules amid concerns over population discrepancies, increases chances of bureaucracy in the process 

The post From Doubt to Dignity: Justice for Jarina Bibi in Assam’s citizenship battle appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, announcing the decision, said the measure would empower civil administration and “to a large extent nullify the role of Foreigners’ Tribunals”.

What the SOP provides

1. Notice and proof – On receiving information from the police or border authorities, the DC issues notice to a suspect, granting 10 days to produce documents proving citizenship.
2. DC’s decision – If documents are unsatisfactory, the DC issues a written order of expulsion under Section 2(a) of the 1950 Act. The person must leave within 24 hours, using a route specified by the DC.
3. Declared foreigners – Where the Foreigners’ Tribunal (FT) has already declared a person a foreigner, the DC will directly issue an expulsion order, bypassing further scrutiny.
4. Police role – Before expulsion, the SSP records biometric and demographic details on the Foreigners Identification Portal.
5. Detention and “pushback” – If a person refuses to leave, they may be placed in a holding centre or handed to the BSF. Individuals detected near the zero line or within 12 hours of entry will be pushed back immediately.

What did CM Sarma say during the Press Meet?

On September 9, 2025, the Assam Cabinet approved the framing of a standard operating procedure (SOP) for implementing the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950.

Addressing a late-night press conference, Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma explained that under the new SOP:

• If a District Commissioner (DC) receives information from the police or any other source that a person is suspected to be an illegal immigrant, the DC will issue a notice directing the person to produce proof of Indian citizenship within 10 days.
• After hearing the individual, if the DC arrives at the conclusion that the person is a foreigner, an immediate order of expulsion (“push-back”) will be issued.
• If the DC cannot reach a firm conclusion, the case will be referred to a Foreigners Tribunal (FT) for adjudication.

Sarma emphasised that the cut-off date remains March 25, 1971, in line with the Assam Accord. Thus, anyone alleged to have entered Assam after 1971 may be brought before the DC under the new procedure. Pending cases before Foreigners Tribunals will continue, but new cases not already before an FT can now be initiated directly before the DC.

The Chief Minister described this as a “landmark decision,” arguing that while the Act of 1950 had never been actively enforced in this manner, the Supreme Court had “clearly indicated” that Assam is free to use it for detection and deportation of foreigners. He claimed the SOP would allow the government to act in the “letter and spirit” of the law, making it easier for the State to expel those determined to be foreigners.

Link of press meet:

(12.25 minutes to 16.35 minutes)

Earlier, on August 21, 2025, the Assam Cabinet also resolved that the State would stop issuing Aadhaar cards to adults, further tightening its documentation regime.

Historical and legal backdrop

The Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 was passed by the Union government in response to post-Partition migration from East Pakistan. It empowered the government to order the removal of any non-Indian whose stay was deemed “detrimental to the public interest” or to the interests of Scheduled Tribes in Assam.

But within a month, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru instructed Assam’s Chief Minister Gopinath Bordoloi to suspend its use following the Liaquat–Nehru Pact (April 1950), which sought to protect minorities on both sides of the border. The Act then fell into disuse. However, the 1950 Act and its use has surfaced only recently, for the same is being used to detain and “push-out” people.

SOP leaves fundamental questions unanswered

Mrinmoy Dutta, Advocate (Gauhati High Court) and counsel for Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), said that the new SOP marks a clear attempt to shift the entire process of citizenship determination from the quasi-judicial Foreigners’ Tribunals to the executive authority of the Deputy Commissioner (DC).

He explained that India’s Citizenship Act does not clearly specify what documents are required to prove citizenship, particularly for those born in India. “There is no definitive legal framework that says what proof of citizenship by birth should look like. This makes the SOP deeply uncertain in its operation,” he noted.

Dutta stressed that there is no debate over the principle that foreigners who entered Assam after March 25, 1971 must be excluded in line with the Assam Accord. “The real question is: who is a foreigner, and how will they be identified? Earlier, this role was entrusted to Foreigners’ Tribunals, but now the SOP transfers that function to the DC, without clear legal safeguards.”

He further pointed out that the SOP does not clarify how it interacts with the National Register of Citizens (NRC). Under NRC rules, persons excluded from the final NRC list were supposed to receive rejection slips, enabling them to appeal. “Those rejection slips have not yet been issued. Now, if a DC serves a notice, it is unclear whether this process will be linked to the NRC or entirely independent of it. Can the SOP override NRC appeal provisions or bypass the Foreigners’ Tribunal framework? These are fundamental unanswered questions,” he said.

Another major concern, Dutta observed, is the absence of an appeal mechanism. “If someone receives a notice late or cannot produce documents within ten days, there is no statutory appeal provision in the SOP. The only remedy left is to approach the High Court under writ jurisdiction. This places a heavy burden on individuals, particularly the poor and marginalized.”

He concluded that judicial scrutiny and oversight are indispensable, because in its current form the SOP risks arbitrary expulsions without clear rules, adequate time, or meaningful remedies.

Critical concerns

1. Bypassing judicial Tribunals

Traditionally, questions of citizenship and foreigner status in Assam are adjudicated by Foreigners’ Tribunals (FTs), quasi-judicial bodies created under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. The new SOP places this power in the hands of executive officers (DCs), raising concerns of bias, lack of due process, and arbitrary decision-making.

While Sarma insists that only “confusing cases” will go to FTs, this reverses the default mechanism: from judicial determination to administrative fiat. Many argue this risks turning citizenship adjudication into a purely bureaucratic exercise.

2. Violation of natural justice

The SOP grants only 10 days for a suspected person to prove citizenship. Given the well-documented difficulties in Assam — poor documentation, illiteracy, displacement due to floods, and language barriers — this period may be unrealistically short. Legal scholars caution that it fails to meet the constitutional requirements of fair hearing and reasonable opportunity under Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 21 (right to life and liberty).

3. Separation of powers and Constitutional mandate

By allowing DCs to override FTs, the SOP arguably undermines the statutory role of Foreigners’ Tribunals, established precisely to ensure that complex citizenship questions are not left to executive discretion. The principle of separation of powers — where determination of rights is reserved for judicial or quasi-judicial bodies — is at stake.

4. Risk of arbitrary expulsions and statelessness

The SOP also permits immediate pushbacks at the border within 12 hours, without any process. This could lead to collective expulsions in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution and India’s obligations under international law, including the principle of non-refoulement under customary international law.

Constitutional and legal questions

1. Does the SOP violate Article 21? The Supreme Court has repeatedly held (e.g., Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)) that “procedure established by law” must be just, fair and reasonable. Ten days to prove citizenship may not satisfy this threshold.
2. Can executive SOP override statutory mechanisms? The Foreigners Act, 1946 and Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 explicitly entrust FTs with the task of determining citizenship disputes. An executive SOP cannot, in law, displace this statutory framework unless backed by Parliament.
3. Equal Protection (Article 14): Selective targeting of Bengali-speaking Muslims, as human rights groups fear, may amount to hostile discrimination. Even if the SOP is facially neutral, its implementation could violate the Article 14 guarantee against arbitrariness.
4. Judicial Review: The SOP is likely to face constitutional challenge. Courts will have to weigh whether the 1950 Act, designed as an emergency measure, can be resurrected in a way that dilutes procedural safeguards crafted over decades.

Government justification

It has been argued by the state that the move is consistent with the Supreme Court’s 2024 directions to employ the 1950 Act alongside Section 6A. According to the report of NDTV, with over 82,000 cases pending before FTs, the government says speedier administrative action is necessary to curb illegal immigration.

Sarma has also claimed that Assam has already “pushed back” more than 30,000 illegal immigrants, and the SOP simply codifies what has been practice on the ground, as reported by Assam Tribune.

Conclusion

The Assam government’s SOP under the 1950 Act is more than a bureaucratic measure — it marks a radical shift in how India addresses contested citizenship. By moving decision-making from quasi-judicial bodies to executive officers, it raises deep constitutional concerns about due process, separation of powers, and fundamental rights.

The legal test ahead will be whether courts uphold this framework as a legitimate application of the Supreme Court’s 2024 judgment, or strike it down as executive overreach incompatible with the Constitution’s guarantees of liberty and justice.

Related:

India’s New Immigration Order 2025: Consolidation or continuity of exclusion?

Not a Foreigner! Foreigners’ Tribunal declares Sukumar Baishya Indian citizen

Assam government to withdraw ‘Foreigner’ cases against Non-Muslims under Citizenship Amendment Act

Banasha Bibi, Bengali-speaking Muslim woman with disability, declared Indian in CJP-Led Legal Win

Assam’s Citizenship Crisis: How Foreigners Tribunals construct an architecture of exclusion and rights violations

The post From Tribunals to DCs, 10 Days to Prove Citizenship: Assam’s radical shift in “foreigner” expulsions appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As per the report of LiveLaw, the petition underscores that preparation of a “correct and error-free NRC” is a matter of national security and one that has already been under the close supervision of the Supreme Court. The petitioner submits that several “omissions and commissions” have taken place during the updation exercise, warranting the Court’s intervention for corrective action.

On August 22, a bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar issued notice in the matter.

Who is the petitioner?

As reported by LiveLaw, the plea has been filed by Hitesh Dev Sarma, a retired IAS officer, who has approached the Court both in his personal capacity and as a representative of a “large section of indigenous people of Assam.” He argues that the flawed NRC process has compromised the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 21, 25 and 29 of the Constitution.

Sarma brings insider knowledge to the petition, having served as Executive Director, NRC Assam (2014–2017) and later as State NRC Coordinator (2019–2022), until his retirement. He claims to have been directly involved in framing verification protocols during the updation process.

Background of the NRC process

• The complete draft NRC was published on July 30, 2018.
• The supplementary list was released on August 31, 2019.
• The final NRC is yet to be published by the Registrar General of India.

According to LiveLaw, the petition refers extensively to official communications, verification reports, IT vendor documents, cyber security audits, and the CAG’s findings, all of which, according to the petitioner, expose grave flaws in the NRC exercise.

Key grounds raised in the petition

1. Exclusion of eligible persons
   • Out of 40,07,719 persons excluded from the draft NRC, around 3,93,975 did not submit claims.
   • Of this group, about 50,695 appeared eligible for inclusion but were left out, according to the petitioner.
2. Incorrect marking of Originally Inhabitants (OI)
   • The Deputy Commissioner of Kamrup reported on June 28, 2019, that 64,247 applicants were marked as OI in Chamaria Circle.
   • Verification later revealed that 14,183 of them were not eligible.
   • Special verification of 30,791 persons found 7,446 ineligible, including declared foreigners, descendants of foreigners, doubtful voters, and persons with pending Foreigners Tribunal cases.
3. Absence of speaking orders
   • During claims and objections, 5,06,140 decisions were made by Disposing Officers (DOs).
   • Yet only 4,148 decisions were backed by speaking orders.
   • Shockingly, names of 43,642 persons shifted from ‘reject’ to ‘accept’, while 4,62,498 shifted from ‘accept’ to ‘reject’, all without hearings or speaking orders.
4. Errors in Family Tree Matching
   • A sample check indicated that 943 names were wrongly entered in the draft NRC due to flawed family tree matching.
   • This suggested a high error rate and absence of adequate quality control mechanisms.
5. Financial irregularities
   • The CAG report (year ending March 31, 2020) flagged irregularities worth ₹260 crore.
   • It recommended fixing accountability on the then State NRC Coordinator.

Supporting documents cited

The plea relies on:

• Letters issued by the State Coordinator, NRC Assam
• Reports of verification teams
• Communications from IT vendor Bohniman Systems Pvt. Ltd.
• Findings of a cyber security consultant concerning safeguards for NRC data.

Prayer before the Court

The petitioner urges the Court to direct a fresh reverification of the draft NRC and supplementary list, arguing that large-scale errors and systemic lapses have compromised the exercise and risk undermining the integrity of the final NRC.

The plea is filed through Senior Advocate Manish Goswami and Advocate-on-Record Rameshwar Prasad Goyal.

Related:

Supreme Court halts deportation of woman declared foreigner, issues notice to union and NRC coordinator

CJP EXCLUSIVE: How the Union of India took a giant step towards both NPR & NRC in 2015 without informed consent

Even the Dead Are Not Spared: A Tragic Tale of NRC’s Heartless Grip on Assam

CAA-NPR-NRC: The Law Is Being Weaponised Against the Constitution

The post Supreme Court issues notice on plea for time-bound reverification of Assam NRC over “large-scale errors” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Taking to X, CM Sarma wrote “Now playing on illegal infiltrators playlist

Assam Police take me home, to the place I belong..

33 new infiltrators have been PUSHED BACK to where they belong — Bangladesh.

BEWARE: Our stringent efforts continue and will further intensify in the coming days.”

Now playing on illegal infiltrators playlist

Assam Police take me home, to the place I belong..

33 new infiltrators have been PUSHED BACK to where they belong — Bangladesh.

BEWARE: Our stringent efforts continue and will further intensify in the coming days. pic.twitter.com/7e99AuGD5X

— Himanta Biswa Sarma (@himantabiswa) August 30, 2025

This official acknowledgement marks another significant escalation. In May 2025, civil society groups had already documented attempted and unlawful pushbacks of Bengali-speaking Muslim women from Assam, several of whom were subsequently rescued and brought back after widespread outcry. Now, CM Sarma has warned that the crackdown would only intensify. It is crucial to note that CM Sarma did not specify the exact entry point for this latest batch.

Showing Adarniya Shri @AmitShah ji the firm progress we have made in evicting illegal settlers from Assam’s lands. pic.twitter.com/hhcgNAyZa9

— Himanta Biswa Sarma (@himantabiswa) August 30, 2025

As per The Assam Tribune. Law enforcement claims a steady weekly removal of 70 to 100 individuals, enforced by Assam Police and BSF, now on heightened alert across the 1,885 km border with Bangladesh.

Due process bypassed

Revived from dormancy, the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 grants district commissioners the authority to expel individuals entering after March 24, 1971, without tribunal intervention. This draconian tool bypasses due legal process, enabling swift deportations both of long-resident undocumented immigrants and fresh entrants

Since mid-2025, Assam has reported weekly pushbacks ranging between 70 to 100 individuals—a ramped-up, relentless enforcement effort. Surveillance along the 1,885 km Indo–Bangladesh border has been beefed up by the Assam Police and BSF, particularly in historically vulnerable stretches.

Notable, as per Times of India, on multiple occasions, Dhaka has publicly denied accepting individuals pushed across the border by Indian authorities, insisting that only documented Bangladeshi citizens with verified proof can be received. In this context, the Assam government’s claim of pushing back “33 infiltrators” raises unresolved questions: Who verified their nationality? On what legal basis were they expelled? Were Bangladeshi authorities even informed?

Under Indian law, Foreigners Tribunals are the only quasi-judicial bodies authorised to determine questions of citizenship and foreigner status. Deportation requires central government sanction, diplomatic coordination, and formal handover to the other state. By contrast, “pushbacks” involve physically expelling people across the border without judicial or diplomatic procedure. Such actions therefore bypass both due process and constitutional safeguards, undermining the principle of rule of law.

Political messaging vs constitutional duty

Arguments have been raised against Assam government’s repeated claims of “success” in pushing back alleged infiltrators serve a political narrative rather than a legal process. Branding individuals as “illegal foreigners” without tribunal adjudication or central authorisation weaponises citizenship disputes, heightening insecurity among minority communities. This approach stands in sharp contrast to India’s constitutional guarantee of equality before law and due process, as well as its obligations under international human rights law prohibiting arbitrary expulsion.

Yet, legal resistance is growing. Habeas corpus petitions in Gauhati High Court and the Supreme Court challenge the constitutionality of such pushbacks. Families of deportees allege disappearances and forcible handovers without documentation, raising fears of statelessness.

Meanwhile, according to a report of Times of India, opposition leader Debabrata Saikia has called on the Union government to review BSF’s monitoring framework, warning of diplomatic tensions with Dhaka if India persists with unilateral expulsions.

Ultimately, while Sarma’s expulsions play well as a populist performance of strength, they expose deep fractures in Assam’s legal regime—trading due process for political spectacle, and risking human rights violations in the name of security.

Related:

Not a Foreigner! Foreigners’ Tribunal declares Sukumar Baishya Indian citizen

Assam government to withdraw ‘Foreigner’ cases against Non-Muslims under Citizenship Amendment Act

Assam’s Citizenship Crisis: How Foreigners Tribunals construct an architecture of exclusion and rights violations

The post Concerns rise along Assam’s escalating pushbacks, 33 additional alleged Bangladeshis “pushed back” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Sukumar Baishya, outside his home, holding up the Foreigners’ Tribunal Order

A journey marked by displacement and persecution

Born in 1963 in Patkata No. 1, Sukumar is the son of Lt. Sahadeb Baishya, who migrated from Binnati, East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) to Assam in 1952–53 due to religious persecution. His father obtained a Certificate of Registration as a Citizen of India on December 24, 1956.

Sukumar’s life story is deeply intertwined with Assam’s turbulent political history. Sukumar’s life was further scarred during the 1983 Assam Movement, when his house was burnt down and all his possessions destroyed. Despite his indisputable roots in India, he found himself accused of being a foreigner who had entered Assam after March 25, 1971.

The case and the State’s allegations

The case against Sukumar arose from a reference under Rule 2(1) of the Foreigners’ Tribunal Order, 1964. He was alleged to be a “foreigner from a specified territory” who entered Assam post-1971.

Sukumar contested this vigorously, asserting that:

• He is Indian by birth, with a father who was a registered Indian citizen since 1956.
• The Investigating Officer (IO) never visited his home, never examined him or his witnesses, and filed a false, baseless, and unverified inquiry report.
• The case was registered in 2004 but he received notice only in February 2021 — a delay of 17 years, which he argued should render the case barred by limitation.

 
CJP Team Assam with Sukumar Baishya outside his home

Documentary evidence submitted

With CJP’s legal support, Sukumar placed on record ten key documents establishing both his own Indian citizenship and his linkage to his father, including:

1. Certificate of Registration (24/12/1956) for his father, issued under Section 5(1)(a)(d) of the Citizenship Act, 1955.
2. Voter List of 1966 – Father’s name recorded under 41 No. Bijni L.A.C.
3. Voter List of 1971 – Father’s name recorded again before the 1971 cut-off.
4. Original Sale Deed (02/07/1956) in his father’s name.
5. Jamabandi Records showing land mutation in 1988 in the names of Sukumar and his brothers after their father’s death.
6. Voter List of 1997 – Sukumar and his wife Renu Bala Baishya recorded at the same address.
7. Voter List of 2005 – Sukumar and both wives (Renu Bala and Anjali Bala) recorded.
8. Ration Card with Sukumar’s and his father’s names.
9. Link Certificate from the President of Palengbari Gaon Panchayat.
10. Additional Jamabandi Records linking the family to the land since the 1950s.

Tribunal’s legal reasoning and findings

The Tribunal framed two key issues:

1. Whether Sahadeb Baishya was a citizen of India.
2. Whether Sukumar Baishya was his son.

On paternity (Issue 2):

• Jamabandi records, the 1997 voter list, and testimony from Sukumar’s younger brother Manindra Baishya and the Land Records Assistant (Manikpur Revenue Circle) proved beyond doubt that Sukumar was the son of Sahadeb Baishya.
• The Ration Card was not accepted as it was not formally proved, but other documentary and oral evidence were sufficient.

On father’s citizenship (Issue 1):

• The Certificate of Registration (1956) and pre-1971 voter lists established Sahadeb as a registered Indian citizen residing in Assam since at least 1956.
• The 1956 sale deed and continuous land records corroborated long-standing residence and ownership.

Final determination: The Tribunal held that Sukumar had successfully discharged the statutory burden under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, proving he was not a foreigner but an Indian citizen by birth. He was absolved of all allegations.

Human impact and community reaction

When the CJP legal team — Dewan Abdur Rahim (Legal Team Member), Nanda Ghosh (State In-Charge), Sudrasan Das (Community Volunteer), Tapash Chakraborty, and Asikul Hussain (Driver) — visited Sukumar to hand over the judgment copy, he broke down in emotion, thanking CJP for restoring his dignity and security.

Neighbour Dulal Baishya, 80, who has witnessed the horrors of the Assam Movement and decades of communal tensions, expressed gratitude for CJP’s intervention. He also voiced his fears: “I’ve witnessed the Assam movement and its horrors, and I’ve seen communal clashes in Assam over the years. Despite all this, I’ve never considered leaving. Recently, one of my relatives moved to North Bengal. But with the government’s citizenship, eviction, and land rules, I’m worried about my own future. As a common person, I’m scared about how I’ll be able to live in this state.”

A wider pattern of injustice

Sukumar’s case is not isolated. Even 78 years after independence, Bengali-speaking Hindus and Muslims in Assam, especially those from poor and marginalised backgrounds, are still being compelled to prove their citizenship, often decades after their families settled in India.

This case underscores the urgent need for:

• Transparent and fair citizenship determination processes.
• Protection from arbitrary investigations and false reports.
• Recognition that bureaucratic processes should not become tools of exclusion against vulnerable communities.

The complete order may be read here.

Related:

Liberty under Siege: Reclaiming the right to speedy trial from the grip of special laws

Assam government to withdraw ‘Foreigner’ cases against Non-Muslims under Citizenship Amendment Act

Banasha Bibi, Bengali-speaking Muslim woman with disability, declared Indian in CJP-Led Legal Win

Assam’s Citizenship Crisis: How Foreigners Tribunals construct an architecture of exclusion and rights violations

The post After years of delay, justice at last for Sukumar Baishya as Foreigners’ Tribunal declares him an Indian citizen appeared first on SabrangIndia.

At the last hearing on June 25, the State had informed the Court, based on written instructions from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Dhubri, that Doyjan Bibi had been handed over to the BSF Sector Headquarters, Panbari, on May 26, 2025 for the purpose of deportation to Bangladesh. This reversal in the claim had come after the Court had been informed, based on verbal instructions received by the counsel of Foreigner Tribunal, that Doyjan Bibi is kept in Kokrajhar Holding Centre. During the June 25 hearing, the State had also sought time to obtain further information from the BSF regarding her current status and location. The Court had then directed the State to provide a specific update on her whereabouts, and if she had been deported, to clarify the location and circumstances of such deportation. However, in the present hearing, the State produced BSF records showing that “a Doyjan Bibi, wife of Abdul Munnaf” had been handed over by Assam Police and pushed back to Bangladesh on May 27, 2025.

However, as the Court pointedly noted that this was not the woman whose custody is being questioned before them. Notably, Citizens for Justice and Peace has been providing legal aid in this case.

Background: A trail of changing claims

Doyjan Bibi’s disappearance has become emblematic of the growing allegations of illegal deportation without due process in Assam. Her family had alleged that she was picked up from their home in Chatabari Gaon, Dhubri district, at approximately 1:00 AM on May 25, by local police. No arrest memo was given. No FIR was registered. No magistrate produced her.

Following this, Abdul Rejjak filed a writ petition in the Gauhati High Court seeking disclosure of her whereabouts and immediate relief.

At the first hearing on June 16, the FT counsel for the State claimed, based only on a verbal telephonic update, that Doyjan was in the Kokrajhar Holding Centre. On this basis alone, the Court allowed the petitioner and one family member to visit the centre and obtain her signature on a vakalatnama.

But when the family reached Kokrajhar, she was not there.

At the next hearing on June 25, the State made a completely different submission—now in writing. It stated that Doyjan Bibi had, in fact, been handed over to the BSF Sector Headquarters, Panbari, on May 26, 2025, for deportation to Bangladesh. No prior notice of this alleged transfer had been issued to the family, nor had she been produced before any magistrate for judicial authorisation of the deportation.

The Court, alarmed by these developments, had directed the State to obtain formal confirmation from the BSF regarding the whereabouts and status of Doyjan Bibi and provide this to the Court by the next date.

Details of the previous hearings may be read here.

Hearing of July 18: The ‘wrong Doyjan’?

At the hearing on July 18, counsel for the State produced a copy of the official communication received from the Frontier Headquarters of the BSF, Guwahati. The document stated that “on the request of Assam Police, amongst others, Doyjan Bibi, wife of Abdul Munnaf, was handed over to them and sent back to Bangladesh from the area of responsibility of the 2503 Battalion BSF, Dhubri, on May 27, 2025.”

However, this update led to immediate confusion in court. Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta, appearing for the petitioner, clarified that the Doyjan Bibi is the wife of Abdul Rejjak—not of Abdul Munnaf. He submitted that there is no such alias in use and that the identity of the petitioner’s husband is well established as Abdul Rejjak alone. He further requested that the State clarify the true identity of the woman who was handed over to the BSF and allegedly pushed back into Bangladesh.

Taking note of the confusion and the unresolved issue of identity, the Court stated on record that if the BSF’s communication relates to a different person—i.e., the wife of Abdul Munnaf—it does not answer the petitioner’s prayer, which concerns the whereabouts of the wife of Abdul Rejjak.

In a stern observation, the Bench told the State that it was their duty to establish the whereabouts of the woman named in the petition—Doyjan Bibi, wife of Abdul Rejjak.

In its order, the Court noted: “The instructions produced by the State pertain to a different individual — Doyjan Bibi, wife of Abdul Munnaf — and are therefore returned. The counsel for FT matters is directed to obtain relevant instructions in this particular case concerning Doyjan Bibi, wife of Abdul Rejjak.”

The matter has now been listed for further hearing on July 25, 2025.

Sharp legal and ethical questions

The case of Doyjan Bibi underscores the wider pattern of irregular and possibly unlawful deportations currently under judicial scrutiny. In similar cases like those of Samsul Ali, Abdul Sheikh, and Majibur Rehman—also argued by Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta with their legal aid being provided by CJP—the Court has taken note of detentions and disappearances of individuals released under long-standing COVID-era bail orders, only to resurface in detention camps or in BSF custody, with no formal arrest documentation.

In the present matter, what began as a disappearance has now escalated into a possible case of mistaken identity, or worse—an undocumented pushback of a woman without verification, paperwork, or judicial authorisation.

The Gauhati High Court, in earlier orders, had made it clear that deportation must follow proper procedures, including production before a magistrate and intimation to the family. That none of these were followed in Doyjan’s case, and that her location is still unknown despite two months having passed, places a constitutional spotlight on the lack of procedural accountability in Assam’s deportation apparatus.

The order may be read here:

Related:

A Targeted Campaign: The orchestrated crackdown on Bengali Migrants and the rising pushback from courts, Bengal government, and civil society

Gauhati HC closes writ petition in Bakkar Ali case after his detained father, Samsul Ali, was recovered and not rearrested

Another Pushback Halted: SC stays deportation of woman declared foreigner, issues notice on challenge to Gauhati HC order

After incorrect detention claim, Gauhati HC was informed that Doyjan Bibi was handed over to BSF

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

The post Gauhati HC orders clarity after state cites deportation of ‘Wrong Doyjan’ in alleged ‘pushback’ case, demands specific reply on her whereabouts appeared first on SabrangIndia.

At the hearing on July 16, 2025, the Gauhati High Court has formally closed the writ petition filed by Bakkar Ali concerning the disappearance and feared deportation of his father, Samsul Ali, after the Court was informed that the detained person had been recovered in an unconscious state in Bijni, had not been rearrested, and had been produced before police authorities, albeit informally.

At the hearing, counsel for the petitioner submitted that on July 10, 2025, in compliance with earlier court directions, Samsul Ali had been taken to the office of the SP (Border), Chirang. However, the SP was not present at the time, and hence his appearance was not formally recorded. The counsel further submitted that since then, Samsul Ali has been undergoing medical treatment and continues to remain out of custody.

Recording these submissions, the Bench comprising Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Susmita Phukan Khaund held that the apprehension of deportation no longer survives, particularly as no fresh action had been taken by the State to detain or remove Samsul Ali after his recovery.

Counsel’s submissions

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta submitted that Samsul Ali was produced before the Superintendent of Police (Border), Chirang on July 10, 2025, in compliance with this Court’s earlier order. However, the SP was not present at the time, and as a result, no formal documentation or endorsement of his appearance could be made.

The counsel further submitted that since that date, Samsul Ali has been undergoing medical treatment, and no steps have been taken by the State to re-detain him or initiate any deportation proceedings.

Court’s observations and order

The Bench recorded that “Samsul Ali was found unconscious in Bijni. It has been submitted that the father of the petitioner was produced before the authorities but his presence was not marked because the SP (border), Chirang, was not there. Since then, the father of the petitioner is undergoing some treatment.”

The Court noted that given Samsul Ali’s recovery, the absence of any further custodial action, and the production before the competent authority, the apprehension of deportation no longer survived. The order stated: “Considering that the father of the petitioner has been recovered and not taken into custody, the apprehension of his deportation would also not survive.”

Accordingly, the writ petition was closed. However, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court again if any future grievance or action arises from the State.

Background of the case

The habeas petition was filed following the disappearance of Samsul Ali on the night of May 25, 2025, from his home in Chatiborgaon village, Chirang district. The family claimed he was picked up by local police without arrest memo, warrant, or magistrate production.

Samsul Ali had earlier been declared a foreigner by a Foreigners Tribunal, but was released on bail in 2019 under the Supreme Court’s suo moto COVID-era order (WP(C) No. 1 of 2020), having completed over three years in detention. He had been regularly complying with the condition of weekly reporting to the local police station. His last recorded attendance was on May 21, 2025.

The first hearing took place on June 6, when the Court issued notice and directed the State to disclose the whereabouts of the petitioner’s father. In the June 10 hearing, the FT counsel informed the Court that Samsul Ali had been handed over to the BSF Sector Headquarters, Panbari on May 26. However, the Court expressed concern over the lack of any formal memo or details of the post from where he was allegedly transferred and directed the SP (Border), Chirang to confirm particulars.

At the June 20 hearing, the petitioner informed the Court that Samsul Ali had been found unconscious in Bijni and brought home by local residents. The Court, acknowledging this, directed that Samsul be produced before the SP (Border), Chirang, and stressed that if any deportation was contemplated, due process must be followed.

Legal significance and closure

The present petition is one of several habeas petitions filed in the aftermath of re-detentions and disappearances of individuals previously released on long-standing COVID-era bail. These cases have raised legal concerns about re-arrest without bail cancellation, absence of arrest documentation, and potential deportations carried out without judicial oversight.

By recording that Samsul Ali is no longer in custody, that he has been produced before the appropriate authority, and that he is currently undergoing treatment, the Court held that the basis of the plea no longer survives. However, the grant of liberty to the petitioner to move the Court again ensures that judicial oversight remains available in case of any future illegality.

The petition now stands formally closed.

Details of the background and legal proceedings may be read here.

The order may be read here:

Update on Related Petitions: State files affidavit in Abdul Sheikh and Majibur Rehman cases, next hearing on July 23

In related petitions also heard on July 16, the Gauhati High Court continued proceedings in the cases of Abdul Sheikh (Sanidul Sheikh v. Union of India) and Majibur Rehman (Reijya Khatun v. Union of India), both of whom had been re-detained in May 2025 despite being out on long-standing bail granted under Supreme Court directions during the COVID period. In both cases, the detenues were previously declared foreigners, had completed over two years in detention, and were released under judicially monitored bail in 2021 and 2022, respectively. They had been regularly reporting to their local police stations in compliance with the conditions of their release.

On July 16, the State filed its affidavits in opposition, which were served to the counsel for the petitioners that morning. These affidavits are expected to set out the State’s legal basis for re-detention without first cancelling the bail orders. The petitioners are likely to respond to the new affidavits. The matters have been listed for further hearing on July 23, 2025.

It is essential to note that on the last day of hearing in both the cases, the State was directed to file a detailed affidavit laying out its legal position. The Court had specified that the affidavit must be served at least six days before the next hearing to give the petitioner time to reply. However, the same, as evident from the present proceedings, did not happen.

Details of the background and legal proceedings may be read here.

Related:

Another Pushback Halted: SC stays deportation of woman declared foreigner, issues notice on challenge to Gauhati HC order

After incorrect detention claim, Gauhati HC was informed that Doyjan Bibi was handed over to BSF

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

The post Gauhati HC closes Bakkar Ali writ petition as missing detainee Samsul Ali is found, not rearrested appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Oh look who’s going back to their home?

In Assam, we welcome guests with open arms but those trying to illegally prolong their stay are treated with the special gesture of PUSHBACK.

18 illegal Bangladeshis pushed back today in wee hours from Cachar and Sribhumi. pic.twitter.com/9U9fZobTNL

— Himanta Biswa Sarma (@himantabiswa) July 5, 2025

In his social media post, Sarma reiterated the state’s position: while Assam welcomes guests, illegal residents would not be permitted to stay. The early-morning operation, executed by Assam Police, was part of an intensified campaign against undocumented immigrants, with Sarma stating that nearly 330 such individuals have been expelled from the state in the past month alone.

For far too long have illegal infiltrators gone scot free.

WE ARE TOLERATING IT NO MORE.

We have begun intensified operations against illegal infiltrators and in the last 1 month, in Cachar district alone, we have pushed back 88 Bangladeshis and Rohingyas back to Bangladesh. pic.twitter.com/e7fDcWLLk8

— Himanta Biswa Sarma (@himantabiswa) June 25, 2025

Security officials, however, have raised red flags. As per India Today NE, it has been reported that many individuals deported under this policy managed to return shortly after being expelled, some allegedly through porous borders in Meghalaya. Several were reportedly refused entry by the Border Guards Bangladesh (BGB), particularly those identified as Muslims, due to lack of coordination or documentation.

These individuals are believed to have been pushed into no man’s land by the Border Security Force (BSF), often during night hours, without proper documentation or adjudication through Foreigners Tribunals, raising serious concerns about violation of national and international legal norms.

July 7: CM Sarma Defends Crackdown, Announces Expansion of Eviction Drive

Speaking to reporters in Kokrajhar on July 7, Sarma defended the state’s actions and promised to expand the eviction campaign. He alleged that individuals from areas such as Karimganj, Dhubri, Chappar, and Silchar had begun settling in Lakhimpur, leading to their eviction to “protect the land rights of the indigenous people.”

“If anyone has a problem with the removal of 350 illegal Bangladeshis, they will have to bear it. Many people have been martyred in the fight to drive Bangladeshis out,” said Sarma, according to the report of India Today NE.

The Chief Minister further stated that the campaign would not be halted due to political criticism. “Now they [opposition parties] are doing politics in the name of this girl to provide security to Bangladeshis,” he added, as reported by India Today NE, alleging that the real intent was to sabotage the BJP-led government’s campaign.

Sarma also announced that evictions would soon be carried out in Chappar, Dhubri, and Bodoland, stating, “No outsider should be allowed to enter Bodoland”.

PIL in Gauhati High Court: Pushback policy challenged as unconstitutional

These aggressive deportation measures have now come under judicial scrutiny. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the All BTC Minority Students Association in the Gauhati High Court alleges that the Assam government’s “push-back policy” is being implemented arbitrarily and in violation of Articles 14, 21, and 22 of the Constitution.

According to the report of LiveLaw, when the matter came up on June 27, a division bench comprising Justices Manish Choudhury and Mitali Thakuria was informed that several individuals had been detained and pushed back without any formal process. The petitioner’s counsel said he had collected the particulars of such individuals, whose whereabouts remain unknown after being picked up by the police.

According to the LiveLAw report, the PIL stated that “Deportation without notice, adjudication or opportunity to appeal constitutes a grave violation of constitutional due process… The State of Assam has undertaken an arbitrary policy of ‘push back’, which is bereft of the principles of natural justice.”

The matter is next listed for July 22, 2025. The petitioners had earlier moved the Supreme Court, but withdrew their plea after the Court expressed its inclination to dismiss it, opting instead to approach the High Court.

What does the petition entail?

1. No Tribunal Orders, No Deportation Proceedings: Violations of Foreigners Act alleged by petitioners

The plea highlights that the pushbacks are being carried out without any judicial declaration from the Foreigners Tribunals, as required under the Foreigners Act, 1946. It argues that such practices lack legal backing and amount to arbitrary and extrajudicial expulsions.

It also refers to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005), where the Court underscored the necessity of following due process in identifying and deporting foreign nationals, warning against wrongful deprivation of citizenship, particularly for vulnerable populations.

As per a report in Bar&Bench, the PIL also challenges the state’s interpretation of the Rajubala Das v. Union of India judgment dated February 4, 2025, which directed deportation of only 63 specific individuals with verified foreign nationalities. The petition contends that the state has wrongly used this order as a blanket licence to detain and push back many more without following legal procedures.

2. Pattern of Abuse: Allegations of Muslim profiling and secret detentions

According to the petition and supporting media reports, more than 50 individuals have been picked up from different districts and transferred to the Matia Detention Centre in Goalpara. These individuals were later handed over to BSF and allegedly expelled at night, without access to lawyers or family. The PIL also refers to the case of a government school teacher who was deported, indicating a pattern of wrongful identification and profiling.

The petition emphasises that once a person has entered Indian territory, pushbacks without a tribunal order or civil authority clearance are illegal under both domestic and international law, including Article 33 of the 1951 Refugee Convention, which India, though not a signatory, is bound to uphold in spirit as part of its constitutional commitment to human rights.

Aadhaar Under Watch: Assam moves to limit access for ‘fresh entrants’

In a related policy development, the Assam Cabinet is considering restricting Aadhaar card issuance. On July 5, Sarma announced that the government may introduce a law empowering only District Commissioners to approve Aadhaar applications for individuals over 18. He claimed that most adults already have Aadhaar, and limiting new issuances would prevent alleged illegal immigrants from gaining documentation.

“Fresh people coming from Bangladesh will not be able to take them,” Sarma said, as provided in the report of The Hindu, adding that the move would serve as an administrative filter against infiltration.

Experts, however, have warned that such restrictions could result in exclusion of genuine Indian citizens, particularly the poor, marginalised, and illiterate, many of whom struggle to prove documentation under existing mechanisms like the NRC or Aadhaar enrolment.

Assam’s aggressive deportation campaign, framed by the state as a defence of indigenous identity, is fast becoming a legal and human rights crisis. The ongoing PIL, multiple media exposés, and testimonies from affected communities point to a systematic subversion of constitutional protections and established legal processes.

Related:

Another Pushback Halted: SC stays deportation of woman declared foreigner, issues notice on challenge to Gauhati HC order

After incorrect detention claim, Gauhati HC was informed that Doyjan Bibi was handed over to BSF

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

The post Bordering on illegality? 18 alleged Bangladeshis “pushed back” without due process, Legal challenge filed in High Court appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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.