Delivering judgment in Bhodu Sekh v. Union of India & Ors. and Amir Khan v. Union of India & Ors., the Division Bench directed the Government of India to take all necessary steps through the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Indian High Commission in Dhaka to bring back Sunali Khatun, her husband Danish Sekh, their minor son Sabir, and in the companion case, Sweety Bibi and her two minor sons Kurban and Imam.

The Bench did not mince words, warning that executive arbitrariness cloaked as “deportation” cannot be permitted to override constitutional protections of liberty and dignity.

Case I – The Bodu Sekh Case (Sunali Khatun, Danish Sekh & Sabir)

The writ petition was filed by Bhodu Sekh, a resident of Birbhum, West Bengal, seeking a writ of habeas corpus for his daughter Sunali, her husband Danish, and their child Sabir.

• On June 24, 2025, Delhi Police, during an “identity verification drive,” picked up the family.
• Within 48 hours, without any proper inquiry, they were deported to Bangladesh on June 26, 2025, escorted by Delhi Police via Guwahati.
• The deportation was carried out under orders of the FRRO, Delhi, citing the Foreigners Act, 1946.

The petitioner contended that the detainees were Indian citizens by birth, permanent residents of West Bengal with family, land, and identity documents in Birbhum. Sunali was also in an advanced stage of pregnancy at the time of deportation.

Arguments raised by both sides

Government’s defence: Representing the Union of India and Delhi Police, the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) argued:

• The detainees admitted during interrogation that they were Bangladeshi nationals who had entered India illegally in 1998 through an unauthorised route.
• They failed to produce Aadhaar, Voter ID, PAN, or ration cards proving Indian citizenship.
• Under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, the burden of proof lies on the person concerned to establish that they are not foreigners.
• The deportation was therefore valid and within jurisdiction.

Petitioner’s case: Counsel for the petitioner rebutted that:

• The family has deep roots in West Bengal, with land records and relatives in Birbhum.
• Identity documents (Aadhaar, PAN, Voter ID) were submitted to local police after their disappearance.
• Sunali’s Aadhaar and PAN show her date of birth as 2000, making it impossible for her to have entered India “illegally” in 1998 as claimed in the interrogation report.
• No due process or inquiry was conducted as mandated by the Ministry of Home Affairs’ Memo dated May 2, 2025, which required a 30-day verification from the detainee’s home State before deportation.
• The principle of non-refoulement, implicit in Article 21, bars forcible expulsion without fair procedure.

Case II – The Amir Khan Case (Sweety Bibi, Kurban & Imam)

Case background

In WPA (H) 51 of 2025, petitioner Amir Khan, a resident of Murarai, Birbhum, approached the Court seeking a writ of habeas corpus for his paternal cousin sister Sweety Bibi and her two minor sons Kurban and Imam.

• On June 24, 2025, Delhi Police detained Sweety and her children in the same “identity verification drive” that led to Sunali’s detention.
• They were deported to Bangladesh on June 26, 2025 under orders of the FRRO, Delhi.
• The deportation was carried out within 48 hours, without reference to West Bengal authorities, and without the mandatory 30-day verification.

Arguments raised by both sides

Government’s defence:

• The ASG argued that Sweety and her children admitted to being Bangladeshi nationals during interrogation.
• They failed to produce valid documents proving Indian citizenship.
• Under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, the burden of proof lies on the person to establish that they are not foreigners.
• Maintainability was challenged: since the deportation order was passed in Delhi, the Calcutta High Court had no jurisdiction, especially as a petition had already been filed in Delhi High Court and withdrawn.

Petitioner’s case:

• Amir Khan submitted that Sweety’s family are permanent residents of West Bengal, with land, relatives, and documentary proof in Birbhum.
• He produced Imam’s birth certificate, proving Indian origin, which was ignored by authorities.
• He argued that the principle of non-refoulement, implicit in Article 21, bars forcible expulsion without fair process.
• The deportation was conducted in breach of the MHA memo of 02.05.2025, which required the case to be referred to the State of West Bengal for verification.

The Court’s observations in both the cases

On maintainability: Rejecting objections that the case should have been filed in Delhi, the Court held that:

• The cause of action was integrally linked to West Bengal, since the detainees hailed from Birbhum, where the petitioner lodged his complaint.
• West Bengal Police had verified their documents and written to Delhi Police, but received no response.

“If such enquiry is an event of substance i.e. an event which is a material, essential or integral part of the lis connected with the action that is impugned in a writ petition, there is no plausible reason as to why the same should not be construed as constituting a material, essential or integral part of the cause of action. The facts required to form the basis of presumption of law would emanate only upon an enquiry to be conducted, routed through the detainees’ place of residence in the State of West Bengal.” (Para 24)

On suspicion and proof: The Court shredded the reliance on police interrogation reports, calling them unreliable and contradictory:

“A close perusal of the interrogation forms as annexed would reveal that after noting the educational qualification, the name of the institute has been omitted. In the column ‘details of family members and where they are residing’, the names of family members have been mentioned without mentioning the place where they are residing. Suspicion, howsoever high, cannot be a substitute of actual proof. There is no appellate authority. In the affidavit filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 4, it is stated that no enquiry was required but in the memo date 23.06.2025 it was stated that an enquiry was conducted. There is also no ‘adverse security report’ against the detainees.” (Para 30)

It also pointed out the glaring absurdity:

“That the proceeding for deportation was conducted in hot haste is furthered by the fact that in the interrogation report, it was stated that Sunali had crossed over and illegally entered into India sometime in the year 1998. Sunali’s Aadhaar card and PAN card reflect her date of birth as 26 years, indicating she was born in the year 2000. Hence, Sunali could not have entered into India in 1998.” (Para 31)

On police “confessions”: The Court strongly disbelieved the so-called admissions:

“The law presumes that a statement to a police officer may have been obtained through pressure or force and is therefore not voluntary. A confessional statement made before a police officer and without any safeguards, would be a direct infringement of the constitutional guarantees contained in Articles 14, 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India.” (Para 30)

The interrogation report was riddled with contradictions and omissions—no mention of educational institutes, vague details of relatives, and an absurd claim of Sunali’s illegal entry in 1998 despite her year of birth being 2000.

On liberty over technicalities: When faced with objections on jurisdiction, suppression of earlier petitions, or non-impleadment of FRRO, the Bench invoked constitutional principle:

“Moreover, the storied jurisprudence on the anvil of protection of constitutional rights in this country, has repeatedly held that when substantial justice is pitted against technical considerations, the cause of the former demands preference over the other especially when the writ court can visualise that deference to such technical considerations would have the consequence of throwing out an otherwise meritorious claim right at the threshold.” (Para 32)

On violation of due process: The Court exposed blatant non-compliance with the MHA’s Memo of May 2, 2025, which prescribed:

• A mandatory 30-day inquiry routed through the home State if a detainee claimed Indian citizenship.
• Communication between States before deportation.
• Deportation only after completion of inquiry and biometric verification.

Instead, Delhi Police deported the family within two days, without informing West Bengal authorities. In its order, the Court stressed that this “hot haste” was unconstitutional.

“Having said this it cannot be denied that the memo of 02.05.2025 applies only to Bangladeshi and Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar; thus, if we take the worst-case scenario of the detainees, that they were not Indian citizens, the steps and procedures laid down in the memo ought to have been followed by the concerned authorities. Not following such procedure and acting in hot haste to deport them is a clear violation which renders the deportation order bad in law and liable to be set aside. The process and procedure adopted in the deportation raise a suspicion that the concerned authorities, while acting in hot haste, have clearly violated the provisions of the memo dated 02.05.2025.” (Para 33)

Before issuing directions, the Bench addressed the central flaw in the deportation: the failure to comply with the Ministry of Home Affairs’ Memo dated 02.05.2025.

“From such sequence of facts it is explicit that the respondents admittedly did not follow the provisions of the memo dated 02.05.2025 inasmuch as the details of the said persons were not forwarded to the State of West Bengal of which they are the residents. It is only after such documents are forwarded, the concerned State Government has to ensure that appropriate report is sent to the deporting State Government/UT after proper verification within a period of 30 days. Admittedly no such enquiry was conducted and the Delhi Administration did not even wait for a week before issuance the order of deportation.” (Para 32)

On executive arbitrariness: The Court powerfully reminded the State:

“The life style of the people shapes the profile of the law and not vice versa. Law cannot be disjuncted from context. The fundamental rights cannot be read as dull lifeless words. If an uncontrolled or unguided power is conferred without any reasonable and proper standards or limits being laid down in the enactment for guidance and control of exercise of such power, the act cannot by the furthest of imagination be construed to be a ‘procedure established by law’.” (Para 35)

And further:

“The executive cannot be vested with any non-fettered discretion. If officials exercise their public authority in an arbitral whimsical manner, the same would bring such act within the scope of prohibition of the equity clause.” (Para 35)

Final Directions

Having built this foundation, the Bench issued its emphatic direction:

“For and on the strength of the totality of reasons afore-indicated, the order of detention dated 24.06.2025 and the order of deportation dated 26.06.2025, so far as Sunali, Danish and Sabir are concerned, are set aside and the respondent nos. 1 to 6, are mandatorily directed to take all steps to bring back Sunali, Danish and Sabir to India within a period of 4 weeks from the date of communication of the order. The said respondents, for such purpose, shall make necessary correspondence and interact with the authorities at High Commission of India, Dhaka, Bangladesh.” (Para 36)

• The detention order of June 24, 2025, and deportation order of June 26, 2025 were set aside.
• The Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, FRRO Delhi, and Delhi Police were mandatorily directed to repatriate Sunali, Danish, and Sabir within four weeks, by liaising with the Indian High Commission in Dhaka.
• A plea by the Union’s counsel to stay the judgment was rejected outright.

In the epilogue, the Court showed zero tolerance for delay:

“Mr. Tiwari, learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 prays for stay of operation of the order. Such prayer is considered and rejected.”

Common Threads in Both Cases

1. Procedural illegality: In both cases, the MHA memo of 2 May 2025 was disregarded, and deportation was carried out in “hot haste” within 48 hours.
2. Confessional statements rejected: The Bench refused to treat statements made before police as voluntary or binding.
3. Suspicion ≠ Proof: Reliance on vague interrogation forms was dismissed as constitutionally inadequate.
4. Article 21 as a shield: The principle of non-refoulement and the guarantee of fairness were read into the right to life and liberty.
5. Restorative remedy: Both judgments not only set aside the illegal orders but directed active repatriation within a fixed timeframe.
6. Stay refused: In both matters, the Court showed urgency, refusing to stay its own orders.

Key significance of both the judgments

The Calcutta High Court converted both the habeas corpus petitions from a procedural safeguard into a restorative mandate, compelling the State not only to stop violating liberty but to actively restore it within four weeks. By rejecting technical objections, demolishing coerced “confessions,” and refusing to stay its own orders, the Bench has made it clear: executive zeal cannot displace constitutional guarantees.

This judgment will stand as a landmark against arbitrary deportations, a reminder that suspicion is not proof, and an assertion that liberty lost must be liberty restored.

• Due process restored: Deportation, even of alleged foreigners, must follow strict statutory and constitutional safeguards.
• Suspicion is not citizenship proof: Courts will not permit arbitrary determinations based on police reports or coerced confessions.
• Article 21 expanded: Fairness, reasonableness, and dignity apply equally to citizens and non-citizens.
• Executive overreach checked: The Bench warned against “overenthusiasm” by officials and reaffirmed that arbitrary discretion is unconstitutional.
• Restorative habeas corpus: The Court moved beyond quashing illegal orders to actively commanding repatriation within four weeks.

The Calcutta High Court has not only ordered the return of a wrongfully deported families but also delivered a landmark reminder that the Constitution forbids arbitrary expulsions, and that suspicion, coercion, or bureaucratic zeal cannot strip individuals of their right to liberty and due process. Together, the Bodu Sekh and Amir Khan rulings stand as a landmark reminder that the Constitution forbids arbitrary expulsions, and that liberty curtailed unlawfully must be affirmatively restored.

Judgment of both the cases may be read below.

Bhodu Sheikh case is below:

Amir Khan case judgment is below:

Related:

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

Targeted as ‘Bangladeshis’: The hate speech fuelling deportations

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 Calcutta High Court quashes arbitrary deportation, orders return of West Bengal families from Bangladesh appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

A journey marked by displacement and persecution

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

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

The case and the State’s allegations

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

Sukumar contested this vigorously, asserting that:

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

 
CJP Team Assam with Sukumar Baishya outside his home

Documentary evidence submitted

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

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

Tribunal’s legal reasoning and findings

The Tribunal framed two key issues:

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

On paternity (Issue 2):

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

On father’s citizenship (Issue 1):

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

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

Human impact and community reaction

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

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

A wider pattern of injustice

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

This case underscores the urgent need for:

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

The complete order may be read here.

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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.