By an opinion dated November 27, 2025, Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 5, Goalpara, presided over by Member N.K. Nath, declared that Anowara Khatun is an Indian citizen, answering the reference made by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Goalpara, in the negative.

The order brings to a close the said proceedings that originated over two decades ago and highlights persistent structural issues in Assam’s citizenship determination framework, particularly its impact on poor and marginalized women.

Team CJP Assam sits to discuss the case with Anowara Khatun and family outside their home in Assam

From IMDT to Foreigners’ Tribunal: A case born of institutional suspicion

Anowara’s case originated as far back as 2004, when the Superintendent of Police (Border), Goalpara referred her name under the now-defunct Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983, alleging that she had illegally entered India between 1966 and 1971. The referral admitted that the “doubt” arose because she could not immediately produce documents during verification — a familiar and deeply flawed basis used against the poor and illiterate.

Following the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005), which struck down the IMDT Act as unconstitutional, Anowara’s case was mechanically transferred to Foreigners’ Tribunal No. 5, Goalpara under the Foreigners Act, 1946, shifting the entire burden of proof onto her under Section 9.

Who is Anowara Khatun?

Anowara Khatun was born and raised in Kharda Manikpur (also recorded as Kharija Manikpur), Goalpara, Assam. She is the daughter of Late Alom Shah, a lifelong resident of Assam, and Korimon Nessa, and the granddaughter of Late Rose Mamud Shah. Documentary evidence showed that her father, Alom Shah, purchased land in Assam in 1947, 1952, and 1959. His name, along with that of Anowara’s mother, appears in the electoral rolls of 1966 and 1970, demonstrating their presence in Assam prior to the relevant cut-off dates.

Anowara studied up to Lower Primary level at Majgaon LP School, married Saiful Hussain of Mamudpur Part-I, and later settled in Sidhabari Part-II, where she has lived for decades. She first voted in 1985, and her name consistently appears in electoral rolls for 1985, 1997, 2005, 2011, and 2015.

Despite this, she was eventually marked a “D-Voter”, stripped of voting rights, and subjected to relentless suspicion — a fate shared by thousands of Bengali-speaking Muslims in Assam.

Her personal circumstances make the cruelty of this process even more stark. Anowara suffers from mental imbalance and chronic health issues, lives in extreme poverty, has no proper bedding, and struggles daily for food and medical care. She and her husband survive on daily labour, entirely unequipped to navigate a legal system designed to break the poor.

CJP Steps In: Building a case where the State saw only suspicion

Recognising the grave injustice involved, Assam Team CJP took up Anowara’s case, committing to pursue it despite the enormous evidenti and procedural hurdles.

On behalf of Anowara, Advocate Ashim Mubarak, assisted by Advocate Shofior Rahman, and supported by CJP’s para-legal and community teams, presented a meticulous defence before the Tribunal.

Four defence witnesses were examined:

• DW-1: Anowara Khatun herself
• DW-2: Her brother, Kurban Ali
• DW-3: Her sister, Ambia Bibi
• DW-4: The Land Record Assistant, Matia Revenue Circle

CJP placed before the Tribunal a comprehensive documentary trail, including:

• Three registered land sale deeds executed in 1947, 1952, and 1959 in her father’s name
• Electoral rolls of 1966 and 1970, recording her parents as Indian voters
• Subsequent voter lists (1979, 1985, 1997, 2005, 2011, 2015) showing uninterrupted electoral presence
• Jamabandi and citha records proving inheritance of ancestral land in Assam

The Tribunal explicitly accepted that the land deeds were over 30 years old and required no further proof, and relied heavily on the voter lists of 1966 and 1970 to establish her father’s citizenship.

Even when Anowara’s deteriorating mental health made her continued presence difficult, CJP persisted with evidence and arguments, ensuring the case did not collapse under procedural cruelty.

Anowara Khatun with her husband and CJP Team Assam outside her home in Assam

The Tribunal’s Finding: Citizenship proven, suspicion rejected

After a detailed appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal held that:

• Alom Shah, Anowara’s father, was conclusively established as an Indian citizen, present in Assam since at least 1947
• Anowara, being his daughter, cannot be treated as a foreigner
• The state failed to rebut the overwhelming documentary record

The reference was therefore answered in the negative, and Anowara Khatun was declared not a foreigner, with directions issued to inform the Superintendent of Police (Border), Goalpara.

Anowara Khatun holding up the FT order outside her home in Assam

A system designed to break the poor

Anowara Khatun’s case is not an aberration — it is a window into a larger architecture of state oppression. Instruments such as D-Voter tagging, Foreigners’ Tribunals, NRC, detention camps, “push-backs,” the Passport Act, SR and SIR exercises operate together to produce statelessness among workers, farmers, minorities, and Bengali-speaking communities.

Assam has long served as a pilot project for citizenship stripping, but the same logic is now visible across India. Behind this bureaucratic machinery lie document-wars, midnight detentions, suicides, custodial deaths, and families torn apart — all in the name of identifying “Bangladeshis.”

India’s constitutional promise of secularism, dignity, and equality collapses when impoverished citizens are tortured for papers they were never equipped to preserve.

CJP’s Role: Law as resistance

At a time when the Chief Minister of Assam openly targets Muslims, spreads communal suspicion, and legitimises exclusion under the rhetoric of “illegal migration,” CJP continues to fight case by case, restoring citizenship through evidence, law, and persistence.

In the first week of February, members of Team CJP — State In-Charge Nanda Ghosh, DVM Goalpara Zeshmin Sultana, Community Volunteer Hasunir Rahman, and Office Driver Ashikul Hussain — stood by Anowara and her family, reaffirming that justice is not charity, but resistance.

Anowara Khatun’s victory is not just hers. It is a reminder that citizenship in India is increasingly something the poor must fight to prove, and that without sustained legal intervention, countless others will disappear into detention camps, deportation attempts, or silent graves.

This case stands as another testament to what determined legal solidarity can achieve — even in the face of a system designed to erase.

The complete order may be read here.

Related:

CJP flags Zee News broadcast ‘Kalicharan Maharaj vs 4 Maulanas’ for communal framing before NBDSA

The case of “pushback” of Doyjan Bibi and the quiet normalisation of undocumented deportations

Communal Dog-Whistles in an Election Season: CJP flags hate speech by BJP’s Ameet Satam to election authorities

From Hate Speech to State Action: How communal vigilantism at Malabar Hill continues unchecked

The post From D-Voter Tagging to Citizenship Declaration: Anowara Khatun’s case before the foreigners’ tribunal appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In the communication, the signatories have stated that these series of public statements made by the Chief Minister of Assam, Shri Himanta Biswa Sarma, on their face, amount to hate speech, executive intimidation, and open vilification of a particular community commonly referred to as the “Miyan” or Bengal origin Muslim community. Over the course of more than 100 years they have become a part of the larger Assamese society by adopting the Assamese language and assimilating with the Assamese culture, says the communication. Besides, the letter states that the statements of the Chief Minister, delivered repeatedly in public forums, go far beyond political rhetoric and enter the prohibited constitutional zone of dehumanisation, collective stigmatisation, and threats of state-sponsored harassment.

In addition, the letter enumerates what they see violations of the Oath of Constitutional Office by the Chief Minister.

The entire letter may be read below:

February 5, 2026

To

The Hon’ble Chief Justice Gauhati High Court

Guwahati, Assam

Subject: Request for Suo Moto Cognisance of Repeated Hate Speech, Executive Interference, and Constitutional Violations by the Chief Minister of Assam

Respected My Lord,

We write this letter with profound faith in the constitutional role of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court as guardian of the fundamental rights.

It is with deep concem that we draw the attention of this Hon’ble Court to a series of public statements made by the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Assam, Shri Himanta Biswa Sarma, which, on their face, amount to hate speech, executive intimidation, and open vilification of a particular community commonly referred to as the “Miyan” or Bengal origin Muslim community. Over the course of more than 100 years they have become a part of the larger Assamese society by adopting the Assamese language and assimilating with the Assamese culture. The statements of the Chief Minister, delivered repeatedly in public forums, go far beyond political rhetoric and enter the prohibited constitutional zone of dehumanisation, collective stigmatisation, and threats of state-sponsored harassment.

(A) Instigation for physical harm, economic discrimination and social humiliation

In a recent public statement Chief Minister of Assam instigated people to make people from Miyan community suffer, he categorically stated, “Whoever can, in whichever way should make Miyan suffer. If you board a rickshaw, if the fare is 5, pay them #4”. Such a statement, coming from the highest executive authority of the State, constitutes a direct call for physical harm, economic discrimination and social humiliation of the Miyan community, normalising

cruelty and stripping them of their inherent right to live with dignity as guaranteed under the Constitution.

(B) Direction to interfere in the Special Revision (SR) process

Equally alarming are public statements wherein the Hon’ble Chief Minister has stated that he has directed or ordered BJP party workers to file objections during the Special Revision (SR) process, particularly targeting members of the Miyan community, he has also said that the officers should work overtime to make Miyan suffer. This is a grave constitutional impropriety. A constitutionally mandated and quasi-judicial process such as the SR cannot be converted into a partisan or communal exercise at the behest of the Chief Minister. Such statements amount to executive interference, undermine institutional neutrality, and violate the principle of free and fair democratic processes, which form part of the basic structure of the Constitution. But, till now, the Election Commission authorities have not taken cognizance of such illegal interference in the SR exercise by the Assam Chief Minister and BJP workers.

Collectively, these utterances have a chilling effect on the right to life with dignity under Article 21, violate equality before law under Article 14, and erode fraternity, a core constitutional value expressly enshrined in the Preamble. They also strike directly at secularism, which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held to be part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

Violation of Constitutional Oath

Under Article 164(3) of the Constitution, the Chief Minister swears an oath to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution and to discharge duties without fear or favour, affection or ill-will. Publicly singling out a religious community for suffering, economic deprivation, heightened scrutiny, and exclusion is fundamentally incompatible with this oath. Such conduct represents not merely political impropriety but a constitutional breach by a constitutional functionary.

Supreme Court Directions on Hate Speech

The brazen hate speech of the Assam Chief Minister is prejudicial to national integration and directly promotes enmity between different groups on grounds of religion. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, has categorically directed that where instances of hate speech come to the notice of authorities, the police are duty-bound to register FIRs suo moto, irrespective of the identity or position of the speaker, and that failure to do so would invite contempt of wit Thace dirartinne are hindinn under Artide 141. Where the alleged violator is the

identity or position of the speaker, and that failure to do so would invite contempt of court. These directions are binding under Artide 141. Where the alleged violator is the Chief Minister himself, the ordinary executive machinery becomes structurally compromised, making judicial Intervention indispensable.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India reiterated that any attempt to spread hate speech must be dealt with iron hand. The Supreme Court observed that, “Hate speech cannot be tolerated as it leads to loss of dignity and self-worth of the targeted group members, contributes to disharmony amongst groups, and erodes tolerance and open-mindedness, which is a must for a multi-cultural society committed to the idea of equality. Any attempt to cause alienation or humiliation of the targeted group is a criminal offence and must be dealt with accordingly.”

Secularism as Basic Structure

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution, notably in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen, and Aruna Roy v. Union of India. State power cannot be exercised to privilege or prejudice citizens on the basis of religion, nor can governance be infused with communal considerations. The statements and directions referred to above are plainly inconsistent with these binding constitutional principles.

In these extraordinary circumstances, we respectfully submit that this is a fit case for this Hon’ble Court to exercise its suo moto jurisdiction to:

1. Direct competent authorities to register a case against hate speech, executive interference, and violations of fundamental rights;
2. Protect the dignity, equality, and security of the affected community;
3. Reaffirm that constitutional functionaries are bound by their oath and constitutional discipline; and
4. Uphold public confidence in secular constitutional governance and the rule of law.

The intervention of this Hon’ble Court is crucial not only for the protection of a vulnerable community but also for preserving the constitutional equilibrium between executive power and fundamental rights. Silence or inaction in the face of such open constitutional transgressions risks normalising them and eroding the moral authority of the Constitution itself.

We submit this representation with utmost respect and hope that this Hon’ble Court will consider taking appropriate action in accordance with law.

Yours faithfully,

1. Dr. Hiren Gohain, Scholar and public intellectual
2. Harekrishna Deka, former DGP, Assam and author
3. Thomas Menamparampil, former Archbishop Guwahati
4. Ajit Kumar Bhuyan, Member of Rajya Sabha
5. Dr. Dulal Chandra Goswami, Environmental Scientist
6. D. Salka, retd. IAS
7. Paresh Malakar, Editor-in-Chief, Northeast Now Duball hoswe upall
8. Deepak Goswami, former Deputy Director General, NIC
9. Lakhi Nath Tamuli, retd. IAS
10. Jayanta Borgohain, retd. Deputy General Manager, IOCL
11. Dr. Indrani Dutta, former Director, Omiyo Kumar Das Institute of Social Change and Development
12. Robin Dutta, former Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Assam
13. Rashmi Goswami, Social Activist
14. Najibuddin Ahmed, retd. Adl. Chief Engineer, PHED.
15. Taufiqur Rahman Borborah

Related:

CJP seeks action against Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma and AIMIM’s Tausif Alam for election code violations in Bihar

Divisive rhetoric on Jharkhand campaign trail: CJP files two complaint against 4 speeches by Assam CM Himanta Biswa Sarma

Himanta Biswa Sarma in latest hate speech blames people of ‘specific religion’ for BJP loss in Nagaland, Meghalaya

The post Suo moto cognisance of repeated hate speech by CM Assam, Himanta Biswa Sarma must: Assam’s public intellectuals to Gauhati HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Addressed to the Chief Election Commissioner and copied to the Chief Electoral Officer, Assam, the memorandum documents a disturbing pattern of unauthorised deletions, fabricated objections, false declarations of death, and misuse of statutory forms, allegedly targeting legitimate voters across multiple districts of the State. Along with CJP, Assam Majuri Sramik Union, Banchana Birdodhi Mancha and Forum for Social Harmony are also the signatories to this memorandum.

Dead voters filing objections, living voters declared dead

Among the most alarming allegations are instances where “dead persons” are shown as having filed objections against living voters, as well as complaints branding living electors as deceased. The memorandum flags this as a grave subversion of electoral procedures, calling for immediate scrutiny of how such objections were accepted during the SR process.

In several cases, voters who never changed residence were issued objections falsely claiming that they had shifted addresses. A separate annexure, the groups state, lists such affected voters.

A single woman, 64 objections — all denied

The memorandum details a striking case from Goalpara town, where a woman named Naba Bala Ray from Jyotinagar, Krishnai, was shown to have filed 64 objections against voters. When the affected voters approached her, she categorically denied filing any objections. While she later withdrew some complaints in Assamese, the memorandum notes a glaring inconsistency: her signatures also appeared on Form 7 complaints in English, which she claimed she could not write or understand.

CJP annexed these complaints as evidence of forgery and fabrication within the objection process.

Man objects to himself — and 133 others

In another extraordinary instance from Shribhumi district (formerly Karimganj), a man named Salim Ahmed was shown as having filed objections against himself and 133 other voters, alleging they were not genuine electors. According to the memorandum, Ahmed told the Booth Level Officer that he never filed any such objection, pointing to what the groups describe as a “fully fabricated” complaint attributed to him without consent or knowledge.

BJP leaders accused of unauthorised access to election data

Beyond individual cases, the memorandum raises grave institutional concerns. It alleges that office-bearers of the Bharatiya Janata Party, including district-level leaders and ST Morcha functionaries, unauthorisedly entered the office of the Co-District Commissioner, Boko-Chhaygaon, and accessed official documents and the Election Commission’s electronic database.

Such actions, if proven, would amount to a serious breach of electoral neutrality and administrative safeguards, the groups warn.

Migrant workers disproportionately affected

The memorandum also flags how migrant labourers from Assam were particularly vulnerable during the SR process. Voters who had temporarily left the State for work during verification reportedly returned to find fresh objections raised against their names, effectively penalising economic migration and seasonal labour mobility.

Allegations of partisan signalling from political executive

Calling for institutional impartiality, CJP and other groups cite alleged interference in the Boko-Chhaygaon constituency and refer to statements attributed to Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, which they characterise as “blatantly partisan” and inconsistent with the constitutional requirement of a neutral electoral process.

Demands to the Election Commission

The memorandum places eight specific demands before the ECI, including:

• Withdrawal of objections where the original complainant is absent during hearings
• Investigation and penal action for false Form 7 complaints
• Action under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 against false declarants
• Compensation for victims subjected to mental, physical, or financial harassment
• Extension of timelines for claims and publication of the final electoral roll

At its core, the memorandum urges the Election Commission to restore procedural integrity and ensure that Assam’s electoral rolls are prepared “free and fair, in the interests of democracy”.

Why was this memorandum submitted?

Coming amid heightened national scrutiny of electoral processes, the allegations — if substantiated — point not merely to clerical lapses but to a structural vulnerability in voter list revision mechanisms, particularly in politically sensitive regions. The memorandum underscores that electoral rolls are not administrative lists but constitutional instruments, foundational to the exercise of universal adult franchise.

The Election Commission has not yet responded to the memorandum.

The complete memorandum may be read below.

Detailed report may be read here.

Related:

Supreme Court defers hearing in batch of petitions, led by CJP, challenging state Anti-Conversion laws; interim relief applications pending since April 2025

CJP flags Zee News broadcast ‘Kalicharan Maharaj vs 4 Maulanas’ for communal framing before NBDSA

A voter list exercise under scrutiny: Assam’s Special Revision of electoral rolls, allegations of targeted harassment and misuse of Form-7

The case of “pushback” of Doyjan Bibi and the quiet normalisation of undocumented deportations

The post Assam’s Electoral Rolls in Crisis: CJP flags structural manipulation in Summary Revision appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Unlike 12 other states and Union Territories where the Election Commission of India (ECI) is conducting Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercises, Assam is undergoing a Special Revision, as directed by the ECI on November 17, 2025, to the State’s Chief Electoral Officer.

As part of this exercise, door-to-door verification was conducted across Assam between November 22 and December 20, 2025. Crucially, unlike SIR, this process did not involve document verification.

According to ECI Letter No. 23/2025-ERS (Vol. II), the timeline for the revision is as follows:

• December 27, 2025: Publication of the integrated draft electoral rolls
• December 27, 2025 – January 22, 2026: Period for filing claims and objections
• By February 2, 2026: Disposal of claims and objections
• February 10, 2026: Final publication of electoral rolls

While officially framed as a routine electoral exercise, the SR has become deeply controversial due to the scale and nature of objections filed under Form-7, particularly against Bengali-speaking Muslims.

Allegations of targeting Bengali-speaking Muslims

Civil society groups including Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), Banchana Birodhi Mancha, Forum for Social Harmony, Asom Mojuri Sramik Union, and the All Assam Minority Students Union, along with several opposition parties, have alleged that the SR is being misused to harass genuine Indian citizens, primarily Bengali-speaking Muslims, through mass and often false objections filed under Form-7.

Although the Assam Election Department issued a public advisory clarifying that filing a Form-7 objection does not automatically result in deletion of a voter’s name, and that every objection must go through field verification, notice to the voter, and an opportunity of hearing, organisations working on the ground insist that the process itself has become a tool of intimidation.

Despite procedural safeguards on paper, citizens report being summoned, questioned, and threatened with exclusion, leading to widespread fear and uncertainty.

Chief Minister’s remarks deepen the controversy

The situation escalated further after Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma made remarks that were widely criticised as communal and inflammatory.

Referring to the SR process, the Chief Minister stated:

“There is no debate over SR. Which Hindu family has received a notice? Which Assamese Muslim household has seen a notice? We have to issue notices to ‘Miyas’ living here. There is nothing to hide. I am troubling them.”

He further remarked:

“We will do some disturbance, but within the ambit of law. We are with the poor and downtrodden, but not those who want to destroy our community.”

Adding to this, he said:

“They have to understand that at some level, people of Assam are resisting them. Otherwise, they will get a walkover. That’s why some will get notices during SR, some for eviction, some from border police.”

These statements were seen by opposition leaders and rights groups as a direct admission that the SR process is being used to target Bengali-speaking Muslims under the guise of legality.

(Translation of headline: “If SR comes to Assam, I will cut off the names of 4.5 lakh Mia. My job is to hurt the Mia. ‘The Chief Minister’s public announcement’

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Assam Talks (@assamtalksofficial)

(Translation: We want to steal a little Mia vote. ‘According to the rules, Mia should not vote in Assam, they should vote in Bangladesh. ‘My job is to hurt the Mia’: CM.)

Misuse of Form-7 and questions over impartiality

At the heart of the controversy is the large-scale filing of allegedly false objections using Form-7, raising serious questions about the impartiality of the Election Commission during the revision process.

Concerns intensified following allegations of interference by BJP workers in the Boko-Chhaygaon area, purported instructions issued by BJP Assam president Dilip Saikia, and the Chief Minister’s public endorsement of “disturbance” through administrative means.

While instances of false objections have been reported from several districts, the issue has drawn particular attention in Sribhumi district (formerly Karimganj) in the Barak Valley.

Sribhumi district: Objections against 133 voters

On January 19, 2026, fifteen Booth Level Officers (BLOs) from Sribhumi district were called for a training session as part of the SR process. Among them was Sumana Choudhury, a young schoolteacher from Karimganj serving as a BLO.

During the session, district officials handed her several objection forms challenging the inclusion of 133 voters from her booth in Srimanta Kanishail village, under the Karimganj North Assembly segment.

According to Sumana Choudhury, the objection forms were partly printed and partly handwritten, and all objections had been filed by a single individual, alleging that the voters had either permanently shifted or were enrolled twice. All 133 voters, she stated, were Bengali-speaking Muslims.

She said:

“During the house-to-house enumeration, I found them at their residences and collected their signatures. They have not shifted. They are genuine voters. The Election Commission documents they signed are proof.”

She further noted that the list included people personally known to her:

“Among the names was the headmaster of my school. Some are parents of my students. How could I ask them to come to a hearing to prove they are genuine voters? Who filed the objections?”

In a startling revelation, the list of objected names included the complainant Salim Ahmed himself and his relatives, effectively meaning the complainant had objected to his own name. When contacted by Sumana Choudhury, Salim Ahmed reportedly denied filing any such objections.

Following the circulation of her statements on social media, Sumana Choudhury was served a show-cause notice by departmental authorities, drawing sharp criticism from opposition leaders and rights groups.

Legal opinion: False objections are punishable

Prominent Sribhumi-based lawyer Shishir Dey stated that filing Form-7 objections on false grounds is illegal and punishable.

He explained that under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and associated electoral rules, deletion of a voter’s name requires specific, evidence-based reasons.

“If a voter’s name is removed based on false allegations, that voter has the full right to seek legal redress,” Dey said.

He further warned that liability does not stop with the complainant:

“Election officials, including BLOs and EROs, can also face legal action if they accept false complaints without proper verification and exclude names from the voter list.”

Legal notices by affected voters

Another instance of alleged misuse of Form-7 was reported from polling stations 24 and 26 of the Achimganj area under the Patharkandi Assembly constituency in Sribhumi district, where objections were filed against thirty genuine voters.

These voters issued legal notices through senior Karimganj lawyer Subrata Kumar Pal to the District Administrator of Sribhumi, the Sub-Divisional Administrator of Patharkandi, the Election Officer, the concerned BLOs, and eight complainants, alleging a conspiracy to remove their names from the electoral rolls.

Ration dealers, verbal verification, and CJP’s intervention

Separately, reports emerged from districts including Chirang, Bongaigaon, Kokrajhar, Darrang, and Goalpara, where ration dealers allegedly began verbally summoning voters for verification.

In response, CJP teams visited local election offices, intervening to ensure that citizens are not compelled to show documents unless served with formal written notices.

CJP teams continue to assist affected voters through hearings, documentation, and coordination with BLOs on the ground.

CJP Assam legal team member Abhijeet Choudhury stated: “We will provide legal support to voters who wish to take action against those filing false complaints.”

“A repeat of NRC-style harassment”

CJP team has warned that the SR process mirrors the harassment experienced during the NRC exercise.

The organisation noted that:

• Most Form-7 complaints are false
• Many targeted voters are migrant labourers working outside Assam
• BLOs had already verified households before inclusion

CJP asserted that objections filed by outsiders without evidence should be rejected outright.

Opposition parties react

Opposition parties urged the Election Commission to ensure that no eligible voter is disenfranchised during the revision.

• The Indian National Congress (INC) lodged a police complaint in Boko-Chhaygaon against local BJP leaders and officials.
• Left parties—CPI(M), CPI(ML), CPI, SUCI, and Forward Bloc—issued a joint statement alleging that Form-7 is being used to target minorities.
• Raijor Dal leader and Sivasagar MLA Akhil Gogoi filed an FIR, citing video footage allegedly showing four individuals unlawfully operating inside the Boko co-district election office.

Earlier, opposition parties also lodged an FIR against BJP Assam president Dilip Saikia, alleging instructions to delete anti-BJP votes.

Sushmita Dev’s intervention

On January 25, 2026, TMC MP Sushmita Dev announced at a press conference: “We will file FIRs against those harassing people by misusing Form-7 and send them to jail.”

Condemning the Chief Minister’s remarks, she said: “Such comments from someone holding a constitutional position are very unfortunate.”

She further alleged that Bengali-speaking Hindus were also being misled, stating: “Like NRC, SR and later SIR will exclude more of their names.”

Claiming that 60 per cent of names in the deletion list in the Kathigara constituency are Bengali-speaking Hindus, she also criticised the show-cause notice issued to Sumana Choudhury, stating that it demonstrated the Election Commission’s political subservience.

Joint opposition press conference

On the same day, opposition leaders—including Debabrata Saikia (INC), Manoranjan Talukder (CPI-M), Akhil Gogoi (Raijor Dal), and Lurinjyoti Gogoi (Axom Jatiya Parishad)—held a joint press conference condemning communal polarisation and the conduct of the SR.

They demanded an extension of the February 2 deadline for disposal of claims and objections and accused the BJP government and the Election Commission of undermining democratic processes.

Related:

Defending Citizenship, On the Ground | CJP Assam 2025

NBDSA orders Times Now Navbharat to take down ‘agenda-driven’ report on Assamese singer’s arrest

CJP scores big win! Citizenship restored to Mazirun Bewa, a widowed daily wage worker from Assam

Assam’s New SOP Hands Citizenship Decisions to Bureaucrats: Executive overreach or legal necessity?

The post Form-7 and the Politics of Exclusion: How Assam’s voter revision has become a battleground appeared first on SabrangIndia.

For a woman who had known nothing but tragedy, the notice was a final blow. She could not sleep. She cried alone. She thought she would die with the fear.

But on November 29, 2025, the Foreigners Tribunal No. 9 of Dhubri brought long-awaited relief. After a painstaking evaluation of evidence, the Tribunal declared Aklima an Indian citizen, dismissing the allegations of her being a foreigner. And the first words she uttered when she held the order were simple: “All I ever wanted at this age was peace.”

A life marked by loss

Long before the state questioned her citizenship, life had already taken almost everything from Aklima.

Born in Kaldoba Pt I to a “Deshi community” family, she had lived her entire life within a cluster of neighbouring villages. Her father, Sonauddin Sk, was a registered voter in 1971; her grandfather, Khusulla Sk, had voted in 1958. The family had lived in the region for generations — long before borders hardened imaginations.

After her marriage to Rahman Prodhani, she moved to Shernagar, where she continued building her life. She cast her first vote in 1997 from her matrimonial home — the same village where, years later, she would be labelled a suspected foreigner.

Then the tragedies began.

The Gangadhar River swallowed her agricultural land. A devastating storm swept away her hut. She lost her husband in 2009. With no children and no property left, she survived by working as a house help, staying either at her workplace or with her brother.

When the FT notice arrived, it felt like the final cruelty.

The notice that shattered what little she had left

A man in plain clothes arrived at her relative’s house with the suspected foreigner notice. Aklima was at work. When she came home and heard the words “police” and “court”, her body shook uncontrollably. Her first instinct was to hide the notice, but fear led her to seek help. She ran to community member Hasrat Zaman, a long-time CJP well-wisher, and placed the notice in his hands.

When the Citizens for Justice and Peace team first met her, she was terrified, fragile, recently ill, and unable to comprehend how she would defend herself.

Her tears wouldn’t stop. Her fear wouldn’t subside. And her documents — scattered, incomplete, and poorly preserved — were nowhere near what the Tribunal would demand.

But CJP refused to let her fight alone.

Aklima Sarkar with CJP Team Assam

CJP Steps In: Counselling, rebuilding confidence, restoring dignity

Before touching the documents, the team focused on what mattered most: making Aklima strong enough to fight.

They visited her repeatedly, counselling her, teaching her how to travel to Dhubri, how to speak in court, and how to face officials. Community volunteer Zaman took responsibility for accompanying her. CJP’s advocate Ishkendar Azad patiently explained every step of the legal process.

Only after stabilising her emotionally did the legal work begin.

The documentation struggle

What Aklima had in her possession was nowhere near enough:

• Aadhaar
• Voter ID
• Bank passbook
• Current voter list entry

To build a strong case, CJP had to reconstruct an entire lineage. They met her brother and village elders, applied for old documents, made visits to government offices, collected legacy documents, and arranged certified copies — all within the strict timelines of the Tribunal.

Key ancestral documentation eventually established

• Grandfather Khusulla Sk: Voter in 1958
• Father Sonauddin Sk: Voter in 1971
• Aklima herself: Voter in 1997 at Shernagar

This chain showed three generations of electoral presence — a critical requirement under Assam’s unique citizenship regime.

The final challenge was persuading witnesses. Her elder brother agreed to testify, and CJP volunteers coordinated with local Panchayat and Circle Office officials to support her appearance.

The Legal Battle: What the Tribunal found

Based on the order, the Tribunal made the following key findings:

1. An unbroken lineage inside India- The Tribunal accepted the documentary evidence establishing that Aklima’s grandfather and father were Indian voters long before 1971 — placing the family firmly within Indian territory prior to the cut-off date.
2. Consistent presence in Assam across decades- Aklima’s migration from her natal village to her matrimonial home was supported by:

• Electoral rolls
• Marriage affiliation
• Community certificates
• Supporting witness testimony

1. No evidence of foreign origin- The state could not produce any proof suggesting that she or her ancestors ever migrated from Bangladesh or any foreign territory.
2. A legally compliant, coherent narrative- The Tribunal found her documents to be authentic, consistent, and contextually accurate when read together.

As a result, the Tribunal declared that Aklima Sarkar is an Indian citizen and dismissed the reference case.

Aklima Sarkar holding up the Foreigners Tribunal order

The moment of relief

On November 29, 2025, CJP State In-Charge Nanda Ghosh, Advocate Ishkendar Azad, and community volunteers Habibul Bepari, Illias Rahman (Rabbi), Zaman, Digamber, and driver Asikul Hussain travelled to meet her and hand over the order copy.

She took the papers in her hands, held them to her chest, and cried.

She could not read the order — but she felt its meaning.

“Without you, I would have died with this tension. All I can give is my duaa.”

She insisted on serving tea. And in the cool evening breeze, with her smile returning after years, the team felt the quiet satisfaction of justice finally delivered.

For women like Aklima, who work as domestic labourers, lack formal education, and have lost ancestral land to erosion, navigating the FT system becomes nearly impossible without support.

Conclusion: Peace, finally — but at a cost no citizen should bear

Aklima Sarkar’s victory is not just a legal outcome — it is a reminder of what countless people in Assam must endure to prove something as basic as belonging to their own country.

Her tears, her trembling fear, her years of sleeplessness — all originated from a notice served “on suspicion”. For a widow who has lost land, home, health, and family, the simple right to live in peace had become a battle. Now, with the Tribunal affirming her citizenship, she finally has the peace she longed for.

The complete order may be read here.

Related:

When Erosion Stole Her Home, a Foreigners’ Notice Tried to Steal Her Citizenship: Hamela Khatun triumphs over foreigner tag

From Despair to Dignity: How CJP helped Elachan Bibi win back her identity, prove her citizenship

Assam BJP’s AI video a manufactured dystopia, Congress files complaint, myths exposed

CJP scores big win! Citizenship restored to Mazirun Bewa, a widowed daily wage worker from Assam

Assam’s New SOP Hands Citizenship Decisions to Bureaucrats: Executive overreach or legal necessity?

Bulldozing the Poor: Assam’s eviction drives for Adani project leave thousands homeless

The post From Suspected Foreigner to Recognised Citizen: Aklima’s fight for dignity and Indian citizenship appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As reported by Hindustan Times, speaking at a women’s empowerment event in Lakhipur, Cachar district, on October 25, the Chief Minister said, “The parents of the male accused in love-jihad cases will also be liable for arrest under the new law. We want to save our women from traps where they become victims of love-jihad and polygamy. We are bringing stringent laws.”

Under the proposed legislation, if a minor girl is lured into an interfaith marriage, both the man and his parents could face multi-year imprisonment. This provision — introducing familial culpability — is unprecedented in any existing anti-conversion law enacted by other states.

According to Times of India, addressing another gathering in Silchar on October 24, Sarma also announced a ban on polygamy, warning that those who “marry more than one woman” would face up to seven years’ imprisonment. “Many men cause immense harm to women by marrying multiple times,” Sarma said, adding that the move sought to “protect the dignity of women and ensure uniformity of law.”

Earlier, on October 22, speaking to reporters in Nagaon, the Chief Minister described the upcoming Assembly session as “historic”, confirming that the government will table several “important and transformative bills” — including those on “love jihad”, polygamy, preservation of Satras (Vaishnavite monasteries), and land rights for tea tribes, as reported by Indian Express. He said that the detailed provisions would be disclosed after Cabinet approval.

Cultural preservation and legislative agenda

Alongside the anti-conversion and polygamy bills, the government will also introduce the Assam Satra Preservation and Development Board Bill, 2025, which was approved by the Cabinet on October 16. The bill aims to protect Vaishnavite monasteries (Satras) — the spiritual and cultural institutions established by the 15th-century saint Srimanta Sankardeva — from alleged encroachment and ensure state-supported preservation, as per LawBeat.

Sarma’s proposed package comes ahead of the 2026 state elections and is seen as part of his government’s broader agenda to “institutionalise” an Assam-centric, almost “majoritarian” cultural and moral order. The Chief Minister has previously said that banning polygamy and “deceitful religious conversions” is part of Assam’s move towards a Uniform Civil Code (UCC)-like framework, echoing the recommendations of the Justice (Retd.) Rumi Kumari Phukan Committee, which examined the legal viability of such a measure.

In recent speeches, Sarma has also linked population control to welfare eligibility, stating, “Some people say that Allah gives them children, so they cannot stop giving birth. I say, give birth as many as you wish, but do not expect government help to raise them or to send them to government schools,” as per Hindustan Times.

The Chief Minister also reacted sharply to comments by activist Medha Patkar, who had criticised the state’s eviction drives and questioned the investigation into singer Zubeen Garg’s death, saying: “Outsiders do not understand the suffering of the indigenous people of Assam. One community is trying to grab our land and take away our sisters through tricks like love-jihad. If Medha Patkar comes here to protest against evictions, we will take strict action.”
(Hindustan Times)

The ‘Love Jihad’ narrative and legal concerns

The term “love jihad” first appeared in 2009 in publications of the Sanatan Prabhat and Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, before being amplified by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP). It gained political traction after 2014, when several BJP-ruled states — including Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, and Haryana — enacted laws criminalizing religious conversions through marriage or deception.

However, Assam’s proposal represents a radical expansion of this framework. By extending culpability to the accused’s parents, it effectively criminalizes familial relationships and transforms allegations of interfaith marriage into matters of collective criminal liability.

Citizens for Justice and Peace, who is also a lead petitioner in challenging the said state anti-conversion laws in the Supreme Court, have warned that such laws are susceptible to misuse, enabling police overreach, community vigilantism, and communal profiling. As The Wire reported, there is no official data to substantiate claims of organized “love jihad” conspiracies, and in several states, arrests under such laws have disproportionately targeted Muslim men in consensual relationships.

The November 25 Assembly session, which Sarma has called “historic,” will be the last major sitting before the 2026 elections. Observers view it as a defining moment that could reshape Assam’s social and legal order — intertwining morality, religion, and state power under the banner of “protecting women” and “preserving indigenous identity.”

If passed, Assam’s “love jihad” and polygamy bills could become among the most far-reaching personal law interventions in independent India, setting a precedent for family liability in interfaith and marital cases, and testing the boundaries between individual freedom, faith, and the expanding reach of the state.

Related:

Gujarat High Court Widened Anti-Conversion Law: ‘Victims’ can be prosecuted as offenders

Supreme Court seeks states’ replies on pleas for stay of anti-conversion laws, to decide on interim stay after six weeks

“Anti-conversion laws being weaponised”: CJP seeks interim relief against misuse of anti-conversion laws

SC issues notice to 5 states in CJP’s renewed challenge to anti-conversion laws

CJP plea against anti-conversion laws: SC seeks to know status of cases challenging ‘anti conversion’ laws in HCs

CJP, other rights groups challenge Maharashtra Govt GR setting up a Committee to “monitor inter-faith marriages”

The post Assam Government to table ‘Love Jihad’ and polygamy bills, CM Sarma says parents of male accused will also face arrest appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The cases — Sanidul Sheikh v. Union of India and Reijya Khatun v. Union of India — were filed after both men, who had been released under Supreme Court-mandated COVID bail in 2021, were suddenly picked up again in May 2025 despite consistent compliance with all bail conditions. They have since been lodged in the Kokrajhar Holding Centre. CJP has been providing legal aid in both these cases.

State’s New Claim: “They were once sent back”

At the hearing, the FT counsel, appearing for the State, told the Bench that “the government is ready to deport them,” but added that “a stay order by this Court” prevented immediate action. The counsel went on to state that “the factual position is that they were once sent back. They came back. Now they are kept in the Kokrajhar Holding Centre.”

This was the first time such a claim had ever been made in the proceedings — no previous affidavit, submission, or oral statement had suggested that the two men had been “sent back” to Bangladesh before.

Appearing for the petitioners, Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta immediately objected: “This is being said for the first time, My Lords. It was never mentioned before.”

Petitioners demand proof of verification

Dutta pressed that before any talk of deportation, the government must first demonstrate factual and documentary verification of nationality, and clarify through which process and destination country deportation is being contemplated:

“Let them show the Court that they have completed the verification. If they have been able to verify, that is different. But they need to show where they will deport and how they will deport. Otherwise, my submission is that the detention is illegal.”

The argument underscored a crucial point — verification of nationality is a precondition to deportation, not a justification for continued detention. Yet, despite repeated demands for such evidence since June, the State has produced no records of nationality confirmation or communication from Bangladesh.

Bench Avoids Two Key Questions: Deportation claim and verification process

Despite the gravity of the new claim, the Bench did not press the State for supporting documentation or clarification on when and how the alleged earlier deportation occurred, or through which process. Nor did it examine the petitioner’s long-standing demand for production of verification records confirming nationality — a prerequisite under both domestic and international law before any lawful deportation can occur.

Instead, the Court recorded that submissions had been heard from both sides and directed that orders will be delivered on October 24, 2025.

By not engaging with either issue — the alleged “previous sending back” or the requirement of verification — the Bench left unresolved the two fundamental questions that have defined this case since its inception:

1. Can persons released on Supreme Court-granted bail be re-detained without bail cancellation, solely on the State’s readiness to deport?
2. Can deportation be initiated without verification or proof of nationality — or, as now alleged, after an unexplained earlier “sending back”?

Legal and factual uncertainty deepens

The State’s assertion that both men had once been “sent back” — without any affidavit or documentary trail — now sits uneasily alongside its claim that they are being held “pending deportation.” The petitioners have maintained throughout that the detention is illegal, since both men were released under valid judicial bail orders, and no court has recalled or varied those directions.

The Bench’s decision to step back from addressing either the alleged prior deportation or the absence of verification records leaves a grey area — a vacuum between State assertion and judicial scrutiny, where neither legality nor process is yet established.

Background: From bail to re-detention

Abdul Sheikh and Majibur Rehman were declared foreigners by Foreigners Tribunals in 2018 and 2019. After over two years in detention, both were released on bail under the Supreme Court’s April 2020 order in Suo Motu WP(C) No. 1 of 2020, which allowed long-term detainees to be freed under conditions of weekly reporting. For nearly two years, both complied — signing attendance registers at Kajolgaon and Goalpara Police Stations every week — until their sudden re-detention in May 2025.

Their families’ petitions have challenged these arrests as unconstitutional, arguing that bail orders remain valid until recalled and that “verification” cannot justify re-incarceration. The State has since argued that deportation efforts, halted during the pandemic, have now resumed — though it has yet to produce any official verification or communication with Bangladesh confirming nationality.

Their petitions, filed by their relatives, argued that detention without recall of bail orders is unconstitutional, and that any “verification” could be undertaken without custody. The State, however, has maintained that it is reinitiating deportations and that detention in holding centres is lawful pending such deportation.

Previous detailed reports may be read here.

Related:

Calcutta High Court strikes down arbitrary deportations of West Bengal residents, orders return from Bangladesh

Bangladeshi Court declares deported Bengal families as Indians, orders their return

Gauhati HC defers final hearing in Majibur Rehman and Abdul Sheikh petitions; Questions state on justification for continued detention

Assam BJP’s AI video a manufactured dystopia, Congress files complaint, myths exposed

CJP scores big win! Citizenship restored to Mazirun Bewa, a widowed daily wage worker from Assam

Victory in Dhubri FT: Jarina Bibi declared Indian after years of ordeal

Assam’s New SOP Hands Citizenship Decisions to Bureaucrats: Executive overreach or legal necessity?

The post “They were once sent back”: Court refrains from probing State’s claim as Assam seeks to justify continued detention appeared first on SabrangIndia.

What remains now is analysis, Assam’s familiar habit of explaining emotion after it has passed. This wave of emotion had a cause and a face. The trigger was the sudden and, to many, suspicious death of the beloved icon Zubeen Garg in Singapore.

Guwahati moves in a familiar rhythm of celebration from Bohag Bihu to the New Year, where reverence and indulgence often share the same day. On September 17, Vishwakarma Puja carried that rhythm to its limit; Guwahati sold more than six crore rupees’ worth of liquor in a single day, among the highest on record. Two days later, the same city that had been celebrating labour and craftsmanship fell silent. The contrast between those two days captured how quickly Assam’s emotional weather can change.

The city that once celebrated together now mourned together, as if the two emotions were only different tempos of the same song. Almost immediately, the government declared five consecutive Dry Days. It was presented as a normal precaution, yet it signalled the nervousness of a state trying to calm itself. The administration seemed suspended between confusion and control, unsure how to contain the scale of emotion that followed.

Control in such moments is nothing new, but it is visible here in sharper form. The government not only polices crime or dissent, but it also regulates emotion. It reads public mood the way it reads flood forecasts, using familiar tools to prevent overflow. The Dry Day order worked as a small dam in that system.

After the singer’s death, the government also tried to manage information. Statements began arriving almost daily but haphazardly, each designed to reassure. The Chief Minister announced that India had invoked the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty with Singapore. A Special Investigation Team was formed. Soon after, a judicial inquiry led by Justice Soumitra Saikia was set up. Each new step was meant to project progress and hold the narrative steady. Even the promise that future updates would come through the CM’s Facebook Live served the same purpose: one voice, one channel.

These measures are standard in a crisis, yet they revealed a change in tone. Himanta Biswa Sarma, who usually dominates Assam’s political space, appeared severely on the back foot for the first time in years. The administration’s machinery remains strong, but its confidence has weakened. Procedure can maintain order but it cannot build trust.

That unease soon became visible in policy. On October 7, barely ten days after the cremation, the Chief Minister announced that from November 1, the government would distribute not only free rice but also heavily subsidised lentils, salt, and sugar. He added that if the BJP won again in 2026, cooking oil would be included. Just a week earlier, in a public appeal, he had said, “Do not vote for us if we can’t give justice to Zubeen.” It was an unusual moment to announce welfare benefits and seek votes. The investigation is still open, and public anger has not yet faded. The scheme looked less like governance and more like reassurance, an effort to shift public feeling from confusion to gratitude.

Around the same time, a different but related controversy was gathering force. On October 1, the organiser of the Northeast Festival in Singapore (where Zubeen last performed), cultural impresario Shyamkanu Mahanta, was arrested by the CID. Belonging to a powerful family, Mahanta has long operated at the intersection of business, culture, and politics. His family occupies key positions across administration and academia, forming one of Assam’s most entrenched networks of influence. Mahanta’s arrest sent shockwaves through those circles and opened a new front in the political storm.

Zubeen Garg’s manager, Siddharth Sharma, was also arrested, and the police soon booked murder charges against them, and two others — singer Amritprabha Mahanta and drummer Shekhar Jyoti Goswami — were also taken into custody. Further, Opposition leaders began alleging that Golden Thread, a company associated with the Chief Minister’s wife, had organised the fashion segment of the Singapore event. The claim turned a sensitive investigation into a full political battle.

In response, the Chief Minister tried to claim that he was never close to Shyamkanu Mahanta, a striking reversal given Mahanta’s long-standing proximity to the government’s cultural and entrepreneurial initiatives. On October 5, during a press conference, Himanta Biswa Sarma went further. “They keep talking about others’ wives,” he said. “Have I talked about anyone’s family? Have I talked about [his] girlfriend who partied with Shyamkanu Mahanta?” The remark, targeting the singer-girlfriend of an opposition politician, was revealing. People have a right to question the Chief Minister’s family, but his turn to personal jibes showed a leader under pressure, struggling to regain hold over the story.

Between these events, the police briefly intensified control. Two social-media influencers, Victor Das and Ajay Phukan, were arrested from a protest site in Guwahati under the National Security Act for posts deemed provocative. The crackdown reflected a government resorting to coercion as a substitute for confidence. The same administration that until last month dictated Assam’s political tempo now finds itself reacting to rumours, social-media speculation, and public confusion that refuses to fade.

What is now unfolding in Assam is not just about one death or one investigation. It is about a government discovering that its reach has limits. For years, it seemed invincible, certain that decisive action could outpace doubt. But something has shifted. Welfare schemes and inquiries can steady the surface, yet the tremor beneath remains, quiet, persistent, and political.

The post The Uneasy Calm in Assam: The Limits of Control of a Nervous Government appeared first on SabrangIndia.

During the hearings, petitioners’ counsel criticised the State’s affidavit as “vague” and stressed that detention for “verification” is illegal when bail remains unrevoked, while the FT counsel argued that the petitions have served their purpose since the detainees’ whereabouts are known and visitation rights have been granted. The Bench comprising Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Susmita Phukan Khaunddisagreed, observing that detention continues and must be legally justified, and adjourned the matter for final arguments on October 14, 2025. CJP has provided legal aid in both the cases.

Background and earlier hearings

The current stage follows a sequence of contentious hearings. On June 25 (Abdul Sheikh) and June 26 (Majibur Rehman), the State conceded that both detainees had fully complied with their bail conditions since release but claimed that their custody was lawful because deportations, stalled during COVID, were now being initiated. The Bench at the time pointed out that no attempt had been made to recall or vary the existing bail orders and directed the State to file affidavits justifying its position.

On July 23, those affidavits were challenged by the petitioners as “vague” and “as empty as possible,” particularly because they offered no legal reasoning for why bail-compliant individuals could be picked up without cancellation of their bail. The petitioners argued that detention for “verification” is unconstitutional, as verification could be undertaken without custody. The Bench directed that the Ministry of Home Affairs’ May 2, 2025 deportation notification, which the State had invoked, be placed on record.

Arguments before the Court

Appearing for the petitioners, Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta reiterated that the continuing detention of Majibur Rehman and Abdul Sheikh is unlawful. He drew the Court’s attention to the affidavit filed by he State, pointing specifically to paragraphs 43 and 45, which provided that the detentions are being justified merely for “factual and documentary verification.” Dutta argued that such verification, if required, could have been conducted without taking the individuals into detention, and that their prolonged incarceration directly violates the Supreme Court’s earlier bail orders, which remain unrevoked.

The FT Counsel, representing the State, maintained that both men are declared foreigners and are currently in holding centres “awaiting deportation.” The Counsel submitted that the government is unable to act further because the matter is sub judice, but argued that the habeas petitions have effectively served their purpose since the detainees’ whereabouts are now known, visitation rights have been granted, and no further relief lies within the habeas framework. If the petitioners wish to challenge the underlying FT declarations, the counsel suggested, they must do so through separate proceedings.

Court’s observations

The Bench rejected the argument that the petitions are exhausted merely because the detainees have been traced. “There is still detention, and we have jurisdiction,” the Bench observed, stressing that the State would have to provide clear justification for continuing custody.

When the FT counsel suggested that the Court could take the same approach as in other similar cases—by recording the grant of visitation rights and refraining from ordering deportation. The FT counsel’s affidavit, filed earlier, was criticised by the petitioners as vague, particularly in its explanation that detention was needed for “verification.” The Court noted that substantive arguments on the affidavit and the legality of detention had not yet been heard due to time constraints.

Order

Recording submissions from both sides, the Court adjourned the matter, noting that the Bench was available only for the first half of the day. The petitions will now be taken up for detailed hearing on October 14, 2025.

The Court’s order states:

The October 14 hearing is expected to be critical. The Court will examine:

Until then, Abdul Sheikh and Majibur Rehman remain in custody, with visitation rights granted to their families.

Related:

Assam BJP’s AI video a manufactured dystopia, Congress files complaint, myths exposed

CJP scores big win! Citizenship restored to Mazirun Bewa, a widowed daily wage worker from Assam

Victory in Dhubri FT: Jarina Bibi declared Indian after years of ordeal

Assam’s New SOP Hands Citizenship Decisions to Bureaucrats: Executive overreach or legal necessity?

The post Detention not explained away by visitation: Gauhati HC questions state on justification for continued detention of Majibur Rehman and Abdul Sheikh appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The final days

On September 14, 2025, Amzad succumbed to cancer at the State Cancer Institute, Guwahati. Just four months earlier, on May 28, 2025, he had been detained and confined in the Matia detention camp, Goalpara. His health rapidly deteriorated inside confinement, but despite medical advice recommending palliative care outside, he remained in custody until his last breath.

The Gauhati High Court was due to hear his pending case, WP(C) 5297/2025, on September 15, 2025 — just a day after his death.

A villager turned “D-Voter”

Amzad was a resident of Rowmari Pathar, a village on the banks of the Brahmaputra in Barpeta district. In 1997, his name was marked as a “D-voter” in the electoral rolls of Chenga constituency. His wife, Maymala Begum, and his mother were similarly marked.

Poverty and illiteracy meant that Amzad could not afford to fight the label. “Our family’s legacy is recorded since the 1951 NRC. His father, Hajo Sekh, and forefathers were registered voters even in 1966,” said Abdul Jalil, Amzad’s cousin.

The Tribunal’s verdict

In 2017, Amzad’s case was referred to the 7th Foreigner Tribunal, Barpeta (Case No. 998/17). He appeared through years of hearings, even during the pandemic. On December 9, 2022, the Tribunal declared him a “foreigner.”

But the family says they were never informed. “Our lawyer kept telling us there were just two more hearings left. We didn’t even know the judgment had already come,” recalled Maymala.

Unaware of the decision, Amzad continued his work as a daily wager — until police abruptly detained him in May 2025.

Fear and helplessness

Amzad and Maymala have seven children — three sons and four daughters. Yet in his final months, his wife dared not visit him in detention or hospital. Branded a “D-voter” herself, with her case still pending in the High Court, she lived in constant dread of being seized too.

Maymala hold up a tiny photo of Amzad

“What if I was also caught and locked in Goalpara Camp?” she asked, torn between grief and fear. Despite her parents’ names being recorded in the 1951, 1971 and 2019 NRCs, she alone was excluded.

Ignored appeals

Amzad’s condition worsened after his cancer diagnosis on August 11, 2025. The Superintendent of the detention camp even advised the family to seek his release for treatment. Jalil, his cousin, wrote a formal plea to the Goalpara Deputy Commissioner on September 1, 2025, requesting that Amzad be freed for medical care.

But no response ever came. Instead, officials summoned the gaon bura (village headman) to inform the family that Amzad’s health was failing. By the time they reached Guwahati Medical College, it was too late.

Doctors’ reports clearly stated that “no treatment modality was left” and only palliative chemotherapy was possible — yet the authorities refused to act.

The final farewell

After two days of official formalities, on September 16, 2025, Amzad’s body was handed over to his family. That evening, he was buried in Rowmari Pathar, just 1.5 km from where he had been detained months earlier.

He was buried as an Indian, in the very soil that had disowned him. His two sons working as migrant labourers in Chennai could not even return to attend the funeral.

A cry for justice

Assam CJP Team visits the grieving family at their home 

A delegation from Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), including state in-charge Nanda Ghosh, advocate Abhijeet Choudhury, DVM of Barpeta Jafar Ali, and local volunteers, visited the grieving family. Jalil showed them the unanswered letter he had sent to the Deputy Commissioner.

“I begged the authorities to release him for treatment. But they kept him locked up until he died. And then, they gave us his body,” Jalil told them.

The cruel paradox

Amzad Ali’s story is not just a personal tragedy; it reflects a wider, systemic cruelty. For decades, thousands have lived under the burden of being branded “doubtful” or “foreigners.” Amzad lived that stigma, died in custody, and was finally buried in the land he always called home.

A citizen in life, denied recognition by the state. A foreigner in papers, but an Indian in death.

Amzad’s death is the second in Matia detention camp this year. On April 17, 2025, Abdul Matleb also died under similar circumstances. Both men were declared “foreigners” during their lifetime, only to be buried in their native villages in Assam. 

The story of Abdul Matleb may be read here.

Separate report on Ali’s death may be read here.

Related:

From Detention to Deportation: The mass deportations and detention crisis at Assam’s Matia centre

SC: Only 10 deported, 33 of 63 contest foreigner status from the Matia Transit Camp, Assam

Supreme Court condemns appalling conditions at Matia Detention Centre in Assam, labels situation a ‘sorry state of affairs’

Victory in Dhubri FT: Jarina Bibi declared Indian after years of ordeal

The post From Assam’s Soil to Detention and Back: The tragic death of Amzad Ali appeared first on SabrangIndia.