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.

In a crucial development in the ongoing petition filed by Abdul Rejjak, the Gauhati High Court was informed for the first time in writing that the petitioner’s wife, Doyjan Bibi, had been handed over to the Border Security Force (BSF) on May 26, 2025, for deportation, contradicting the State’s prior submission that she was being held at the Kokrajhar Holding Centre.

This marks a serious departure from the State’s earlier stand. During the last hearing on June 16, the FT counsel, relying on telephonic instructions, had told the Court that Doyjan Bibi was located at the holding centre within the 7th Assam Police Battalion, Kokrajhar, and on that basis, the Court had granted visitation rights to the petitioner along with a family member to meet her and obtain her signature on a vakalatnama. CJP has been providing legal aid in the said case. (Details of the hearing may be read here.)

However, in the June 25 hearing, the FT counsel backtracked, admitting to the Court that he may have misinformed the bench. During the June 25 proceedings, the FT counsel acknowledged the earlier error, stating:

“I apologise, because in this I have probably been wrongly instructed… I got the telephonic instruction — not confirmed. But I was instructed that she was there in Kokrajhar. But later, in confirmed and written instruction received, it is said that she had been handed over to the BSF.”

He submitted that written confirmation had now been received from the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Dhubri, stating that on May 26, 2025, Doyjan Bibi had been handed over to the BSF Sector Headquarters, Panbari, with the intent of deporting her to Bangladesh.

The Bench, comprising Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and K. Sema, recorded this change in stand, noting that the earlier submission to the Court had been made on the basis of unverified telephonic instruction, and that the written communication now received from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Dhubri, indicated that Doyjan Bibi had in fact been handed over to the BSF on May 26, 2025.

The Court observed that the respondent had requested that information be obtained from the BSF Panbari regarding her whereabouts.

In its order, the Court noted that:

“Respondent submits that, although on the basis of telephonic instruction he had informed the Court on 16.06.2025 that the wife of the petitioner is being held in the holding centre in the 7th Assam Police Battalion, Kokrajhar, he has now received written instruction from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Dhubri, that on 26.05.2025, the wife of the petitioner was handed over to the BSF Sector Headquarters, Panbari, for deportation to Bangladesh.”

Accordingly, the Court directed the respondents to obtain information from the BSF Panbari regarding the present whereabouts of Doyjan Bibi, and observed that:

“In the event she has not been deported out of the country, obtain information as to the location where the petitioner’s wife is currently being held.”

The matter has been listed for further hearing on July 18, 2025.

The order may be read below.

Related:

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

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

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

“State says handed over to BSF, Found Unconscious in Bijni” Gauhati HC demands answers after Samsul Ali returns home unconscious

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

The post Doyjan Bibi not in Holding Centre, but handed to BSF: State tells Gauhati HC, taking departure from earlier stand appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

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

June 25: Sanidul Sheikh v. Union of India 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In its formal order, the Court recorded that:

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

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

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

Details of the earlier hearings may be read here.

The order may be read below.

June 26: Reijya Khatun v. Union of India 

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

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

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

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

Details of the earlier hearings may be read here.

The order may be read below.

Key legal question before the High Court

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

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

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

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

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

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

In the continued writ petition proceeding filed by Reijya Khatun, the Gauhati High Court on June 20 directed the Foreigners Tribunal (FT) counsel to verify whether Majibur Rehman, her husband, had been complying with weekly police station reporting conditions at the time of his recent re-detention.

Appearing before the bench comprising Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Malasri Nandi, the petitioner’s counsel confirmed that, following earlier court orders, the family had been allowed to visit Majibur Rehman at the Kokrajhar Holding Centre and obtain his signature on a vakalatnama. The petitioner is now pressing for restoration of bail, citing full compliance with conditions since his release in November 2021. CJP has been providing legal aid to the petitioner in the present case.

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

Court records bail history and prior compliance

The High Court recorded that Majibur Rehman was declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal (Chirang) and subsequently detained. However, upon completing two years in detention, he was released on November 15, 2021 under Supreme Court–mandated guidelines for long-term detainees, specifically those under Suo Motu WP(C) No. 1/2020.

The counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta, referring to Paragraph 13 of the writ petition, submitted that Majibur Rehman had been regularly reporting to the police station as per the bail conditions, with the last reported attendance recorded on May 21, 2025 — just days before he was allegedly picked up again without prior notice or legal process.

Judicial Direction: FT counsel to verify reporting claims

In response, the Division Bench directed the FT counsel to verify the claims of weekly police station attendance since the date of release in November 2021. The verification report is expected to be crucial in determining whether the State had any legal basis to detain Majibur Rehman again without first moving for bail cancellation or presenting breach of conditions.

The matter is now listed for further hearing on June 25, 2025, by which time:

• The FT counsel is expected to submit verification of police reporting records;
• The Court may take up the petitioner’s prayer for restoration of bail or other relief;
• The legality of re-detention without judicial revocation of bail could come under deeper scrutiny.

Context and similarity to parallel petitions

This case mirrors several other petitions heard recently by the High Court, where persons released under COVID-era bail — having spent more than two years in detention and fulfilling reporting conditions — were picked up again in May 2025 without apparent process or notice to family.

In all such cases that are currently being heard in the Gauhati High Court, including petition filed Sanidul Sheikh for his father Abdul Sheikh and Torap Ali for his uncles Abu Bakkar and Akbar Ali, the Bench has now begun focusing on the verification of bail compliance as a threshold issue in evaluating the legality of renewed detention.

The order may be read here:

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

The post Gauhati HC Orders Verification of compliance with Bail Conditions in petition filed by Reijya Khatun for detained husband appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Gauhati High Court on June 20 allowed Torap Ali, a petitioner from Assam, to again visit his two detained uncles — Abu Bakkar and Akbar Ali — at the Kokrajhar Holding Centre, along with one family member and one advocate. The visitation was granted to enable the petitioner to take instructions and file a response to the State’s affidavit alleging that his uncles were not complying with their bail conditions prior to their sudden detention in May 2025.

The said petition is part of a broader series of cases where Bengali-speaking Muslim families in Assam have approached the Court after their relatives — previously released on COVID-era bail after being declared foreigners — were picked up without fresh legal process, often without any notice or documentation provided to the family.

Background: Bail under COVID guidelines, followed by re-arrest

Both Abu Bakkar and Akbar Ali, residents of Bhukuradia village, Kamrup district, had been declared foreigners by FT No. 4, Kamrup in 2017. They were subsequently detained and later granted bail during the COVID-19 pandemic, after having completed over two years in custody — under guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu WP(C) 1/2020 and adopted by the Gauhati High Court.

Their bail conditions required them to report weekly to the local police station — a compliance regime that many of the now detainees have followed for years without breach.

In the petition filed by their nephew Torap Ali, it was asserted that both men had been faithfully reporting to the police station every week, and that there had been no cancellation of bail or fresh order of detention prior to May 24 — the date they were suddenly picked up from their residence at night by Border Police without any arrest memo or warrant.

Details of the case may be read here.

What happened in previous hearings

• On May 28 and 29, the Court issued notice and asked the State to disclose where Abu Bakkar and Akbar Ali were being held.
• On June 4, the Court asked the Foreigners Tribunal (FT) counsel to obtain verification from the local police station about whether the detained men were complying with bail. Family was granted visitation rights.
• On June 16, when the Court asked whether the FT’s foreigner declaration had been challenged, the petitioner’s counsel admitted that it had not. While the Court declined to grant protection from deportation, it nonetheless directed the SP (Border) to verify whether the bail conditions were followed.

Details of the hearings may be read here.

June 20: Visitation allowed, deportation not addressed

At the latest hearing:

• The FT counsel submitted that an affidavit from SP (Border), Kambhogi will been filed that very day. The affidavit, the Court noted, is opposed to the petitioner’s claims of bail compliance.
• Counsel for Torap Ali requested visitation rights to meet the two detainees in order to take instructions and prepare a formal response affidavit. The request was granted.
• The Court ordered that Torap Ali, one family member, and one advocate may meet Abu Bakkar and Akbar Ali at the Kokrajhar Holding Centre.
• The case was listed next for July 14, 2025.

The petitioner’s counsel also raised concerns about the risk of the detainees being pushed across the border into Bangladesh, and asked the Court to ensure that any deportation not occur without legal process.

However, the Bench declined to enter such protection, stating:

“We cannot presume illegal pushing (out) by the State. There is a declaration of foreigner status that has not been challenged.”

That said, the Court granted liberty for urgent out-of-turn listing if any adverse or coercive action is taken before the next hearing.

The order may be read here:

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

The post Visitation again allowed by Gauhati HC in Torap Ali petition as affidavit opposing claims of regular police reporting is filed appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

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

Background of the case

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

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

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

Chronology of the proceedings in the High Court

June 6, 2025: Issuance of notice

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

June 11, 2025: Visitation granted, attendance verification ordered

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

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

• The petitioner’s counsel confirmed that visitation had occurred and reiterated that Hasinur had been complying with his bail conditions.
• The Court took strong exception to the re-arrest, especially given that the 2021 bail order was never cancelled.
• The Bench observed in its order that: “Since bail had been granted to the son of the petitioner on 7/6/2021, the subsequent detention becomes expressly illegal” and “It becomes the duty of the Court to protect the fundamental rights of the detained person. Illegal detention cannot be allowed even for a minute.”
• The Court rejected the State’s request for adjournment, noting that failure to seek instructions could not be used to delay compliance with judicial orders.
• It ordered the immediate release of Hasinur from the Kokrajhar Holding Centre.
• The SP (Border), Goalpara, was directed to ensure that the order was carried out.
• The matter was listed for June 20, 2025, for confirmation of compliance.

June 20 hearing: Release confirmed, compensation refused

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

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

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

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

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

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

The case sets an important precedent on:

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

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

The order may be read here:

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petitioner seeks bail restoration

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

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

Court’s Direction: Verification of weekly attendance

Taking this into account, the Court directed that:

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

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

The order may be viewed here:

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

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

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

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

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

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Constitutional Dilemma: Whether to protect or provoke retaliatory detention

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

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

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

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

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

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

After resuming, Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta clarified:

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

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

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

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

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

The Court issued a cautiously worded but clear direction:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background: Three years in detention, bail and then disappearance

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

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

Timeline of the case

This case has seen incremental disclosures over successive hearings:

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

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

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

A case that challenges the integrity of deportation procedures

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

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

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

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 16, 2025: Court orders immediate release

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Based on the above arguments, the Court stated that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background: Bail, compliance, and sudden pickup

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

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

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

June 6, 2025: Habeas petition admitted; deportation stayed

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

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

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

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

June 11, 2025: Court flags potential illegality of detention

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

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

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

Accordingly, the Court:

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

Detailed report may be read here.

Significance: A judicial stand against state overreach in citizenship matters

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

It demonstrates that:

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

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

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What We Know So Far: June 9, 2025

The Gauhati High Court on Monday, June 9, heard four separate writ petitions invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, each seeking urgent relief and accountability in the cases of individuals who were allegedly picked up by Assam Police from their homes in Chirang and Dhubri districts between May 24–25, 2025, without any arrest memo, warrant, or formal production before a magistrate.

All four individuals — Doyjan Bibi, Samsul Ali, Majibur Rehman, and Abdul Sheikh — had previously been declared foreigners by Foreigners Tribunals (FTs), and were later released from detention under bail regimes notified by the State in accordance with Supreme Court directions during the COVID-19 period. All of these individuals are being provided legal aid by Citizens for Justice and Peace. They had all been regularly reporting to police as part of their bail conditions until the date of their sudden and unexplained apprehension. Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta appeared in these matters.

Every week, CJP’s dedicated team in Assam, comprising community volunteers, district volunteer motivators, and lawyers, provides vital paralegal support, counseling, and legal aid to many affected by the citizenship crisis in over 24 districts in Assam.  Through our hands-on approach, 12,00,000 people successfully submitted completed NRC forms (2017-2019). We fight Foreigner Tribunal cases monthly at the district level.  Through these concerted efforts, we have achieved an impressive success rate of 20 cases annually, with individuals successfully obtaining their Indian citizenship. This ground level data ensures informed interventions by CJP in our Constitutional Courts. Your support fuels this crucial work. Stand with us for Equal Rights for All #HelpCJPHelpAssam. Donate NOW!

In the hearings, the High Court addressed key factual developments in each case, including the revival of FT orders, lack of procedural documentation in alleged deportation, and confirmation of detainees’ custody in holding centres. While the Court granted limited relief — such as visitation rights and directions to trace detainees — the legality of the State’s actions and procedural safeguards during or prior to deportation remain under ongoing judicial scrutiny. The matters are being heard since Friday, June 6, 2025.

Meanwhile, through independent social media sources, CJP has found that Doyjan Bibi, a woman from India may be currently lodged in a jail in Bangladesh and Samsul Ali in a similarly distraught condition in No Man’s land between the two countries. See the memorandums submitted to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) here and here.

The matters are next listed between June 10 and June 20, 2025.

Case 1: Abdul Rejjak v. Union of India (Re: Doyjan Bibi)

Bench: Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and N. Unni Krishnan Nair

Status: Revival of FT Order due to non-compliance

Next hearing: June 16

The first case involved the petition filed by Abdul Rejjak, husband of Doyjan Bibi, who was picked up from her residence in Gauripur, Dhubri district on the night of May 24, 2025. She had previously been declared a foreigner by FT No. 4, Dhubri in 2017, and was detained for over two years before being released in 2021.

Notably, in 2021, a coordinate bench of the Gauhati High Court had set aside the ex parte FT opinion that declared her a foreigner — subject to the condition that she reappear before the Tribunal to file her written statement and participate in fresh proceedings. According to the State’s submissions, Doyjan Bibi failed to appear before the FT on the reappointed date, leading to the revival of the original FT declaration and cancellation of bail.

The petitioner has argued that the non-appearance was due to a delay in receiving the court’s 2021 order and not due to wilful default. The Court took note of these circumstances and listed the matter for continued hearing on June 16, where it may further assess the legal consequences of non-compliance and whether any further relief is appropriate in light of the revived foreigner opinion.

The order may be viewed below:

Case 2: Bakkar Ali v. Union of India (Re: Samsul Ali)

Bench: Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and N. Unni Krishnan Nair

Status: BSF handover admitted; procedural details missing

Next hearing: June 10

In this petition, Bakkar Ali, a resident of Goraimari No. 2, sought a writ of habeas corpus for his father, Samsul Ali, who had been declared a foreigner in 2016 (FT Case No. BNGN/FT(CHR)2039/08), detained for over three years, and released in February 2020 in accordance with Supreme Court-mandated bail conditions. Since then, he had faithfully reported weekly to Panbari Police Station, with his last appearance recorded on May 21, 2025.

According to the petition, Samsul Ali was picked up by police around 11:30 PM on May 25 without any arrest memo, warrant, or judicial order. Despite efforts by the family to trace his whereabouts, the authorities refused to accept an FIR and provided no information.

During the hearing, the State admitted that Samsul Ali was handed over to the BSF, reportedly pursuant to a Government of India notification. However, no documentation or particulars of the handover — such as the BSF post, time, or any memorandum — were provided.

The Court expressed serious displeasure with the lack of procedural information and stated that the incomplete information was not at all appreciated. In the order, the bench noted that “The Superintendent of Police (Border), Chirang should have provided appropriate particulars.”

The Court directed that the SP (Border) Chirang must communicate with the FT counsel and transmit all relevant details via WhatsApp, including any official memorandum of handover. The matter has been listed for immediate hearing on June 10, with the Court expected to examine whether the deportation complied with legal procedures, including those outlined in the State’s own affidavit before the Supreme Court in Rajubala Das v. Union of India.

The order may be viewed below:

Case 3: Rejiya Khatun v. Union of India (Re: Majibur Rehman)

Bench: Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and N. Unni Krishnan Nair

Status: Detention in Holding Centre confirmed; visitation rights granted

Next hearing: June 20

In the third case, the Court heard a habeas corpus petition filed by Rejiya Khatun, wife of Majibur Rehman (also known as Majibur Sheikh), who had been declared a foreigner by FT Chirang in 2019. After completing two years in detention, he was released on November 15, 2021, under COVID-19 bail guidelines, and had been consistently reporting to Kajolgaon Police Station every week — his last recorded visit being May 21, 2025.

The petition alleged that he was picked up from his home in Salijhora at night on May 25, without any documentation or court order. For over two weeks, no information about his custody was shared with the family. Attempts to file an FIR were refused, and a complaint had to be sent by post.

In Court, the counsel for FT matters confirmed that Majibur Rehman is currently being held at the Kokrajhar Holding Centre. In response, the Court granted visitation rights to the petitioner and a maximum of two others and directed that his signature be obtained on the vakalatnama authorising legal representation. The petitioner’s counsel is to update the Court on the outcome of the visit. The case is listed for further hearing on June 20.

Details of the previous hearing may be read here.

The order may be viewed below:

Case 4: Sanidul Sheikh v. Union of India (Re: Abdul Sheikh)

Bench: Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and N. Unni Krishnan Nair

Status: Detention in Holding Centre confirmed; visitation rights granted

Next hearing: June 20

Similar in fact and structure to the previous matter, this petition was filed by Sanidul Sheikh, son of Abdul Sheikh, who was declared a foreigner ex parte in 2018 (FT Case No. BNGN/FT/CHR/220/07), detained for two years, and released in April 2021 under Supreme Court guidelines.

He had been reporting weekly to Kajolgaon Police Station, and was last seen signing the register on May 21, 2025. The family claims he was picked up by police from their residence in Chatibargaon at 11:30 PM on May 25 without any documentation, and subsequently disappeared. As in other cases, the family’s attempts to file an FIR were rebuffed.

During the hearing, the State submitted that Abdul Sheikh is detained at the Kokrajhar Holding Centre. The Court granted visitation rights, allowed up to two family members to accompany the petitioner, and instructed that his signature on a vakalatnama be collected. The matter is also listed for June 20, alongside the Majibur Rehman matter.

Details of the previous hearing may be read here.

The order may be viewed below:

Other such similar cases

While four of the habeas corpus petitions currently before the Gauhati High Court are being pursued with legal aid support from Citizens for Justice and Peace, they are by no means the only such instances. The case of Mozida Begum, who approached the Court independently regarding the sudden detention of her son Hachinur @ Hasinur, reflects that similar patterns of late-night police pick-ups, denial of access to legal process, and prolonged non-disclosure of whereabouts are affecting others beyond the immediate CJP-supported cases. Her case — involving a person released on bail and complying with reporting obligations — reinforces that these are not isolated incidents, but rather part of a larger trend impacting multiple families across Assam, raising shared concerns about procedural fairness, transparency, and the potential misuse of FT declarations to bypass due process protections.

Case: Mozida Begum v. Union of India (Re: Hachinur @ Hasinur)

Bench: Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Malasri Nandi

Status: Court issues interim stay on deportation of detainee; confirms he is held at Kokrajhar Holding Centre

Next hearing: June 11

On June 6, 2025, the Gauhati High Court heard the petition filed by Mozida Begum, mother of Hachinur @ Hasinur, a resident of Milan Nagar, Baladmari, Goalpara district. The petitioner moved the High Court after her son — a declared “foreigner” previously released on conditional bail — was suddenly picked up by the Border Police of Goalpara on May 25, 2025, despite regular compliance with bail conditions, including weekly reporting to the local police station.

The petitioner, represented by Advocate A.R. Sikdar, submitted that her son had been faithfully reporting to Goalpara Police Station, with his last three appearances logged on May 5, May 12, and May 19, 2025. These were duly acknowledged by the Officer-in-Charge, and an extract of the attendance register was annexed to the writ petition.

According to the petition, Hachinur was taken into custody on May 25 by personnel from the Border Police wing of Goalpara without prior notice, arrest memo, warrant, or any cancellation of his bail order. He was initially taken to the Goalpara Police Reserve, then transferred to the Transit Camp in Matia, where family members were told he was no longer in custody. Multiple inquiries by the family failed to elicit any information about his present location.

During the hearing on June 6, the counsel for the Foreigners Tribunal submitted that Hachinur is currently lodged at the Kokrajhar Holding Centre, located at the 7th Assam Police Battalion complex in Charaikhola. This was the first official confirmation of his whereabouts, nearly two weeks after he had been picked up.

Given the serious apprehensions of unlawful deportation expressed in the petition — especially in light of recent alleged “pushback” cases across the Indo-Bangladesh border — the Court issued the following interim directions:

No deportation of Hachinur shall be carried out without express orders of the Court;

The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Border), Kamrup (Metro) shall be informed of this order via email or WhatsApp by the FT standing counsel;

A copy of the order must also be forwarded to the Kokrajhar Holding Centre, and proof of such communication shall be placed before the Court on the next date;

The matter is next listed for June 11, 2025, when the State is expected to file its response, and the Court will consider further directions, including on the issue of bail.

The case has highlighted not only procedural irregularities in the manner of detention but also a lack of transparency in the custodial transfer of declared foreigners, even when they are under judicially approved bail protection.

The complete order may be read below.

Conclusion: A worrying pattern of secret detentions, procedural evasion, and statelessness risks in Assam

The five above-mentioned habeas corpus cases brought before the Gauhati High Court between June 4 and June 9, 2025, taken together, reveal more than isolated procedural lapses — they reflect a systemic pattern of disregard for constitutional safeguards, legal process, and transparency in Assam’s handling of individuals declared as “foreigners” under the Foreigners Act.

In each of these cases — whether it was Abdul Sheikh, Majibur Rehman, Doyjan Bibi, Samsul Ali, or Hachinur @ Hasinur — the individuals were:

Declared foreigners years ago by Foreigner Tribunals, often on ex parte or minimally reasoned orders;

Released from long-term detention under Supreme Court-mandated bail conditions during the COVID-19 period;

Complying regularly with all reporting obligations, including weekly appearances at police stations;

Then suddenly picked up between May 24–25, 2025, without arrest memos, warrants, or production before a magistrate;

With no information provided to families for days or weeks, forcing them to approach the High Court for basic disclosure;

And in at least one case (Samsul Ali), possibly deported without any official record of nationality verification or BSF handover protocol.

The Court, to its credit, has taken some necessary remedial steps: ordering disclosure of detainees’ locations, granting visitation rights, requiring vakalatnamas, staying deportation in one case, and demanding that missing procedural records (such as BSF handover documents) be produced. But the underlying pattern remains deeply concerning.

These are not instances of absconding or violation of bail — in fact, all five individuals were in regular contact with police authorities up to the week of their detention. Their sudden re-arrest — without formal notice, and in some cases without revocation of their bail — suggests a shadow system of policing that bypasses the courts, leaves families uninformed, and raises serious questions about executive overreach in matters of citizenship and detention.

What’s more, most of these Foreigners Tribunal opinions failed to establish even a prima facie case of alternative nationality. In several cases, the individuals were never shown to have crossed a border or held documents of any other country. Yet, the assumption of “foreignness” — once declared — now operates with a finality and force that can lead to detention, disappearance, and possible expulsion — even years later, and even after bail has been granted.

These cases expose a deeply troubling legal vacuum:

• The Foreigners Tribunals continue to deliver life-altering orders without establishing key facts — such as where the individual is allegedly from.
• Police and border authorities act without judicial oversight — detaining individuals with no fresh order, often in complete secrecy.
• Families are denied access, both physically and legally, until they invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court.
• And in the background looms the risk of statelessness — where a person is stripped of recognition in India, but not acknowledged as a citizen by any other country.

In a constitutional democracy, the deprivation of liberty must be backed by law, transparency, and due process. The five cases heard this week suggest those principles are being routinely bypassed in Assam’s implementation of the Foreigners Act.

As the matters come up again between June 10 and June 20, the Court has an opportunity not only to remedy individual violations, but to ask the larger question: Can a person be deprived of their freedom — and potentially their country — without judicial scrutiny, without nationality verification, and without a legal process the public can see and challenge?

So far, the answer has been far from clear.

Related:

Gauhati High Court directs Assam Government to disclose whereabouts of two men secretly detained by the police in May

CJP Exclusive from Assam: Six Indian women, six torturous nights, and the ordeal of being dubbed “Bangladeshi” by the State

“Disappeared in the night”: CJP’s memorandum to NHRC on Assam’s secretive detentions and illegal pushbacks

CJP Exclusive: Homeland to No Man’s Land! Assam police’s unlawful crackdown on residents still battling for restoration of citizenship rights?

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