In a significant order, the Foreigners Tribunal, Dhubri District, has declared Akurbhan Bibi, a marginalised Muslim woman from Assam, to be an Indian citizen in her own birthplace. The decision brings closure to a process that subjected her and her family to prolonged anxiety, uncertainty, and the constant fear of statelessness.

For Akurbhan Bibi, the Tribunal’s declaration is more than a legal outcome—it is the restoration of a life interrupted by suspicion.

Akurbhan Bibi stands with her husband outside their home

Roots in the Borderlands: Birth, marriage, and belonging

Akurbhan Bibi was born in 1982 at Sonakhuli Part II village, under Golokganj Police Station, in Dhubri district, Assam. She grew up on Indian soil, studied at the local school, and lived an ordinary life shaped by the rhythms of a rural border district.

She later married Nur Mohammed, a resident of Ramraikuti village, under the same police station (now under Agomani). Ramraikuti lies in a highly sensitive border area, where the Indo–Bangladesh international fencing stands just a few metres away from residents’ homes.

This region has endured the aftershocks of the 1971 war and Partition-era displacements, yet families like Akurbhan’s have remained rooted here for generations. Their presence is not accidental or recent. As many residents of the border villages assert, they are not Indian by chance, but Indian by choice.

Citizenship by Participation: A voter turned “suspect”

Akurbhan Bibi’s name was enrolled in the electoral rolls in 2005 at her matrimonial home. From that point onwards, she remained a regular voter, exercising her democratic rights year after year.

During this entire period:

• She was never summoned for verification
• No police officer visited her home
• No doubt was raised about her nationality

This long-standing civic recognition was suddenly overturned when she was served a “Suspected Foreigner” notice issued through the Border Branch of the local police station, summoning her before the Foreigners Tribunal.

The notice demanded that Akurbhan Bibi prove her Indian citizenship, placing the entire burden of proof upon her—a requirement that disproportionately devastates poor and marginalised communities in Assam.

A familiar pattern of targeting

Akurbhan Bibi’s case is not an exception; it reflects a broader pattern. Foreigners Tribunal proceedings in Assam frequently target economically vulnerable, Bengali-speaking Muslim families, many of whom lack easy access to archival records, legal assistance, or bureaucratic support.

In Akurbhan’s case, there was no new evidence, no triggering incident, and no intervening conduct that could justify the suspicion raised against her. The notice emerged solely from institutional suspicion—untethered from her lived reality as a voter, resident, and daughter of the soil.

A family history that predates suspicion

Akurbhan Bibi’s paternal lineage is firmly documented. Her father, Saher Sheikh, son of Sonauddin Sheikh, has records tracing back to 1951, with his name appearing in the 1951 National Register of Citizens (NRC)—a foundational document for determining citizenship in Assam. Despite this, Akurbhan herself was forced to defend her nationality, highlighting the intergenerational insecurity imposed on families even when documentary proof exists.

The Notice Arrives: Fear, Absence, and Urgency

When the notice was served, Nur Mohammed was not at home. Like thousands from Assam’s border districts, he survives as a migrant worker, travelling to other parts of India for employment.

Left alone, Akurbhan Bibi carefully read the notice. Understanding its gravity, she acted immediately. Without delay, she contacted CJP’s community volunteer, Hosen Ali, who belongs to her village and is known for assisting families facing such proceedings.

Fear was palpable. The threat of detention, separation, and statelessness loomed large—particularly for a woman with limited means and support.

Akurbhan Bibi and CJP Team Assam

CJP Steps In: Legal Counselling and Ground Support

CJP promptly examined Akurbhan Bibi’s documents and counselled her on the Foreigners Tribunal process. The emotional toll was severe. When Nur Mohammed returned home the very next day, he was visibly shaken.

Detailed consultations followed. CJP assured the family of consistent legal and logistical support, and began the painstaking task of document collection and verification.

The Documentary Challenge: Searching for 1966 records

One of the most critical challenges was tracing Akurbhan Bibi’s father’s name in the 1966 electoral rolls. Given that her father was 23 years old at the time of the 1951 NRC, it was reasonable to expect his inclusion in the 1966 voter list. However, repeated searches yielded no result—not even the Election Office in Dhubri could locate his name.

Importantly:

• The names of her paternal uncles (her father’s brothers) were present in the 1966 voter list
• This reinforced the family’s long-standing residence in the area

While pursuing these records, CJP gathered additional crucial documents, including land records, which later became decisive evidence before the Tribunal.

The legal battle before the Foreigners Tribunal

On behalf of CJP, legal team member Ishkander Azad represented Akurbhan Bibi before the Foreigners Tribunal, Dhubri.

The legal strategy focused on:

• Establishing pre-1971 ancestry
• Demonstrating linkage between Akurbhan and her father
• Corroborating residence through multiple independent documents

After evaluating the evidence, the Tribunal passed an order declaring Akurbhan Bibi to be an Indian citizen.

What the Tribunal Order holds

In its order, the Foreigners Tribunal, Dhubri, inter alia:

1. Accepted the 1951 NRC entry of Saher Sheikh, father of Akurbhan Bibi, as a valid and credible legacy document
2. Accepted the linkage between Akurbhan Bibi and her father, based on documentary evidence placed on record, establishing that she is the daughter of the person whose name appears in the 1951 NRC
3. Took note of supporting documents, including land records and collateral family documents, which corroborated continuous residence and ancestry in Assam
4. Did not draw any adverse inference from the absence of the father’s name in the 1966 voter list, particularly in light of:
   • the presence of close family members in the 1966 rolls, and
   • systemic gaps in archival records
5. Held that the proceedee had successfully discharged the burden of proof cast upon her under the Foreigners Act and Tribunal procedure
6. Declared Akurbhan Bibi to be an Indian citizen, and accordingly dropped the reference against her

 
Akurbhan Bibi and her husband with CJP Team Assam

Justice Delivered: A cup of tea and a quiet smile

The order copy was personally handed over to Akurbhan Bibi by CJP’s Dhubri district community volunteer, Habibul Bepari, along with Assam State In-charge Nanda Ghosh. Holding the order in her hands, Akurbhan Bibi smiled—a rare, unguarded smile of relief. She requested the team to wait for a while. She wanted to prepare tea.

It was a simple act, but one that spoke volumes.

She thanked CJP repeatedly. Her husband stood beside her, visibly lighter, as though a long-standing fear had finally loosened its grip.

CJP stood with her—when it mattered most.

Why the Tribunal’s order matters

1. Burden of proof and structural inequality: Foreigners Tribunal proceedings place the burden of proof entirely on the individual, often ignoring the realities of poverty, displacement, and archival gaps. Akurbhan Bibi’s case demonstrates how this burden disproportionately impacts marginalised women.

2. Recognition of legacy documents: The Tribunal correctly acknowledged the probative value of:

• The 1951 NRC entry of her father
• Land records and collateral family documentation
• Linkage evidence, even in the absence of a 1966 voter record for her father

This reflects judicial consistency with established FT and High Court jurisprudence.

3. Absence of adverse inference: Importantly, the Tribunal did not draw adverse inference from the non-availability of the 1966 voter list entry—recognising systemic record gaps rather than penalising the proceedee.

4. Gendered vulnerability in citizenship proceedings: The case highlights how women—especially migrant workers’ spouses—are uniquely vulnerable when notices are served in the absence of male family members.

5. Constitutional significance: The declaration reaffirms:

• Article 14 (Equality before law)
• Article 21 (Right to life and dignity)
• The principle that citizenship cannot be stripped through suspicion alone

The complete order may be read here.

Related:

Humanity over Technicalities: SC ensures return of pregnant woman and child deported in June sweep

“All I Wanted Was Peace”: How 55-year-old widow Aklima Sarkar won back her citizenship

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

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

The post Born in the Shadow of the Indo–Bangladesh Border, Raised as Indian, Questioned as a Foreigner: The citizenship battle of Akurbhan Bibi appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The decision came during the hearing of special leave petitions filed by the Union challenging two Calcutta High Court orders of September 26–27, which had directed the return of six individuals deported to Bangladesh and mandated an opportunity to them to establish their Indian citizenship. Sunali and her child are among those six deportees, whose removal from India has since raised troubling questions of due process, legality, and the treatment of vulnerable individuals caught in verification drives.

A family caught in a deportation sweep

The case originated from a habeas corpus plea filed by Bhodu Sekh, Sunali’s father, who told the High Court that his family hailed from West Bengal but had migrated to Delhi for better livelihood opportunities. According to Sekh, Sunali, her husband, and their son were detained on June 21 during an identity-verification campaign initiated under a Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) notification dated May 2. Within five days, the family was produced before the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) and deported to Bangladesh on June 26.

In its September rulings, the Calcutta High Court noted the “hot haste” of the proceedings and criticised the Union and Delhi Police for effecting deportation without a fair hearing or adequate inquiry. The court observed that the names of the deportees’ grandfathers appeared in the electoral rolls of West Bengal—an important indication of Indian lineage. It also highlighted that the May 2025 MHA memo allows immediate deportation only under emergent circumstances following proper inquiry, finding that such procedural safeguards were “conspicuously absent.”

Detailed reports on the said case may be read here, here and here.

Humanitarian Intervention by the Supreme Court

At the recent hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Supreme Court that the Union had, after consultations, agreed to bring back Sunali and her child because of her advanced pregnancy and the need to avoid separation between mother and minor child. He clarified that the gesture:

• was not an admission concerning their citizenship,
• would not set a precedent,
• and would be accompanied by appropriate surveillance upon their return.

As the deportation was conducted formally through official channels, Mehta requested that the court incorporate the Union’s undertaking into its written order to expedite diplomatic coordination with Bangladeshi authorities. The Bench complied, ensuring that the repatriation process could begin without administrative obstacles.

Significantly, as per the report of Livelaw, the court remarked: “These are cases where law has to bend to humanity. Some of these cases require a different outlook.”

The order marks a crucial assertion of judicial discretion in situations where rigid enforcement risks inflicting disproportionate harm on vulnerable individuals.

Directions ensuring medical and social support

Accepting requests from senior advocates Kapil Sibal (appearing for the State of West Bengal) and Sanjay Hegde (for Bhodu Sekh), the Supreme Court directed that Sunali be allowed to reside temporarily in Birbhum district, where her family lives. As per Livelaw report, the Bench further ordered:

• Free and comprehensive medical care for Sunali, including all delivery-related services;
• Full assistance and day-to-day care for her minor son;
• Immediate coordination between the Union, West Bengal authorities, and medical officials to ensure safe return and treatment.

The Bench noted that since Sunali was picked up from Delhi, she may initially be brought back to the national capital before being shifted to her native district.

Citizenship Inquiry: Biological link may be pivotal

Justice Bagchi raised a crucial legal issue: if Bhodu Sekh is indeed an Indian citizen—as the High Court record suggests—then Sunali, as his biological daughter, and Sabir, as her child, would also qualify as Indian citizens. The Court urged the Union to undertake an inquiry into Sekh’s citizenship in accordance with principles of natural justice, signalling that the broader dispute over nationality remains very much alive.

Contempt proceedings and Union’s concerns

The Solicitor General informed the Court that a contempt petition was pending before the Calcutta High Court against the Union Government for non-compliance with the repatriation directions. While Mehta requested protection, the Bench said that since the Supreme Court was now seized of the matter, the High Court would not proceed independently. It declined to formally stay the contempt proceedings but indicated that the issue would not trouble the Union in light of ongoing Supreme Court supervision.

Remaining Deportees: Union maintains they are Bangladeshis

The Supreme Court also took note of the fact that four other deportees named in the High Court’s September orders remain in Bangladesh. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal requested that the Union take instructions regarding their return as well. The Solicitor General resisted, insisting that the remaining individuals were “Bangladeshi nationals” and that the Union had a serious contest to their claims of Indian citizenship.

The Bench has directed the Union to return with its instructions at the next hearing, signalling that the nationality dispute for the remaining individuals is far from settled.

Backdrop of procedural lapses

The High Court’s criticism of the June 2025 deportations remains a crucial backdrop. The Delhi Police, FRRO and central agencies executed the arrest-to-deportation timeline in five days, a speed the High Court deemed incompatible with fair procedure. It held that:

• no adequate inquiry was conducted,
• no meaningful opportunity to be heard was given,
• and the exercise violated the Union’s own procedural guidelines.

Although the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on these legal defects, its present orders focus on preventing further harm while preserving the Union’s right to contest the High Court’s findings.

A limited but crucial relief

While emphasising that its directions do not prejudice the Union’s legal arguments on the merits of the deportation, the Supreme Court made clear that humanitarian imperatives could not be ignored. The Court will resume hearing the matter on December 12, when it will also consider the status of the remaining deported individuals.

For now, the Court’s intervention ensures that a heavily pregnant woman and her young child will not be left without medical care or family support across an international border—sending a powerful message that judicial oversight remains vital where citizenship, deportation and human dignity intersect.

Order can be read here.

Related:

“All I Wanted Was Peace”: How 55-year-old widow Aklima Sarkar won back her citizenship

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

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

Gauhati High Court seeks Centre’s May 2025 deportation notification as legality of re-detention of Abdul Shiekh and Majibur Rehman is scrutinised

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

CJP Win! Gauhati HC stays deportation of Ajabha Khatun, will address bail demand on April 4

The post SC secures return of pregnant woman and child deported to Bangladesh, says ‘law must bend to humanity’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

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

A life marked by loss

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

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

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

Then the tragedies began.

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

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

The notice that shattered what little she had left

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

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

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

But CJP refused to let her fight alone.

Aklima Sarkar with CJP Team Assam

CJP Steps In: Counselling, rebuilding confidence, restoring dignity

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

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

Only after stabilising her emotionally did the legal work begin.

The documentation struggle

What Aklima had in her possession was nowhere near enough:

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

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

Key ancestral documentation eventually established

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

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

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

The Legal Battle: What the Tribunal found

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

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

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

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

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

Aklima Sarkar holding up the Foreigners Tribunal order

The moment of relief

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The complete order may be read here.

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With these words, Hamela Khatun, also known as Hamela Begum, recalls the moment her world collapsed. A resident of Bhakeli Kanda in Darrang district, she grew up in a family of small farmers who survived on a patch of land along the Brahmaputra. Like millions in Assam’s char regions, river erosion was a familiar enemy. Their land vanished gradually, leaving the family impoverished and forcing them to migrate to Kerala as labourers.

Yet the destruction of their home was only the first blow. In 2009, the Border Branch of Darrang issued a notice against her under the Foreigners Act, accusing her of being an “illegal Bangladeshi migrant.” Overnight, a woman who had been born, raised, and registered as a voter for nearly two decades was declared a suspect. For Hamela, who had lived her entire life in Assam, the allegation was not merely bureaucratic confusion — it was a wound to her sense of belonging. The notice left the family shaken, terrified, and mentally shattered.

How help arrived — entirely by chance

In early 2025, as the family travelled to Bako in Kamrup district for temporary work, fate intervened. At a relative’s house, they unexpectedly encountered Advocate Abdul Hai, a member of CJP’s Assam legal team. With hesitation, they shared their ordeal — the FT notice, the years of fear, the absence of guidance, their displacement to Kerala, and the looming threat of deportation. Moved by their distress, Hai immediately informed CJP State Secretary Nanda Ghosh, who assured them that CJP would provide full legal assistance, completely free of cost.

This chance meeting, almost accidental, changed the entire course of Hamela’s case. For the first time in years, the family felt a faint sense of hope.

Hamela Khatun stands with CJP’s Assam Team

The Case Before the Foreigners Tribunal: What the state alleged

The reference against her — Ref. Case No. 294/2009, formally registered as F.T. Case 5861/2011 — was forwarded by the Superintendent of Police (Border), Mangaldai. It claimed that Hamela was not an Indian citizen but an illegal migrant who had entered Assam unlawfully. Her entire identity was placed under suspicion, and the Tribunal was asked to determine whether she was an Indian or a foreigner.

Crucially, under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, the burden of proof lies on the accused — meaning Hamela had to prove her own citizenship, rather than the state proving she was a foreigner. For a poor, illiterate woman displaced by floods, this burden is extraordinarily harsh. Yet she refused to give up.

How Hamela Proved Her Citizenship: A lifetime of records, preserved against all odds

Despite years of displacement, poverty, and illiteracy, Hamela managed to gather a remarkable collection of documents establishing her lineage, identity, and continuous presence in Assam.

She proved that her grandfather, Jasim Mandal, appeared in the 1951 Legacy Data and in the 1960 Voters’ List. Her paternal uncles appeared in 1966 and 1977 Voters’ Lists, showing that the family has lived in the same region for decades. Her father, Haidar Ali, appeared consistently in voter lists from 1985 all the way up to 2025, establishing uninterrupted citizenship across generations. Similarly, her mother, Rupbhan Nessa, and her siblings were all documented in electoral rolls in Sipajhar LAC across the years 1997–2025.

Hamela also produced all her own electoral records from 2006, 2010, 2021, and 2025, each showing her as a resident of Mangaldai LAC. Alongside this, she submitted a residential certificate, a linkage certificate from the Gaon Panchayat, land documents from the 1950s and 60s, Aadhaar card, PAN card, ration card, bank passbook, and several other personal IDs.

In addition to documentary evidence, her father testified before the Tribunal. His deposition — detailing the family tree, place of origin, the names of his brothers and sisters, and his movements over the years — matched perfectly with every document filed. This consistency became a decisive factor in establishing her citizenship.

Tribunal’s Detailed Findings: A clear, decisive, evidence-based victory

The Tribunal, after examining every record, deposition, and certified document, delivered a clear and categorical finding. It held that Hamela’s forefathers were genuine Indian nationals, and her family lineage from her grandfather to her father was fully supported by electoral records dating back more than six decades. Her own voting history since 2006 further reinforced her claim.

The Tribunal found the evidence “reliable, trustworthy, and sufficient,” noting that there was nothing in the record to cast doubt on her claims. Her grandfather’s name appeared in the 1960 electoral roll, her uncles in 1966 and 1977, her father and mother across multiple voter lists until 2025, and her own name in four different rolls over nineteen years. Every link in her family tree was documented, certified, and verified.

Based on this, the Tribunal concluded:

“Musstt. Hamela Khatun @ Hamela Begum… is not a Foreigner/Illegal Migrant of any stream. The reference is answered in the negative.”

It directed the Superintendent of Police (Border), Mangaldai, and the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, to take necessary action recognising her as an Indian citizen.

It was a complete victory — built entirely on evidence, consistency, and truth.

When the Order Reached Her Home: Relief after years of fear

On November 24, 2025, a CJP team comprising State In-charge Nanda Ghosh, DVM Joinal Abedin, Advocate Abdul Hai, driver Asikul Hussain, and local community volunteers travelled nearly six hours across rough, broken roads to reach Hamela’s house.

The journey was long, but when they arrived, they saw a sight that made every hour worth it — Hamela standing with a wide, relieved smile, holding the order copy that restored her identity.

She told the team, her voice trembling with gratitude: “You saved us by fighting the case for free. You stood by us in times of trouble.”

In a gesture of humility and affection, she offered them boiled eggs from her chickens and small flower seedlings from her garden — a heartfelt expression of thanks from someone who had endured years of erasure and suffering. She added, “I was worried for so long, but today I’m happy.”

As the team left, the sun was setting over the Brahmaputra, casting a warm glow over the green fields that surround her house — a fitting end to a journey that symbolised justice, dignity, and belonging.

Why Hamela’s story matters for Assam and India

Hamela’s struggle is emblematic of the larger issues in Assam’s citizenship verification system. Her case highlights how:

• River erosion uproots entire communities, leaving them without documents.
• Poor, illiterate women are disproportionately targeted and unable to navigate legal processes.
• The burden of proof under Section 9 places crushing pressure on the accused.
• Entire families with long-established presence in Assam can be declared “suspects” based on bureaucratic doubts.

Yet her case also demonstrates the power of community support, legal aid, and sustained documentation. It shows that even in a system stacked against the poor, justice is possible when facts are presented clearly and fearlessly.

Conclusion

Hamela’s story is ultimately one of resilience. She lost her land to the river. She lost her livelihood to displacement. The state tried to take her citizenship. But she fought back — through truth, documentation, and sheer courage. The Foreigners Tribunal vindicated her, reaffirming that she belongs to this land as firmly and deeply as her ancestors did.

Her journey — from erosion and poverty to legal recognition and dignity — stands as a reminder that citizenship is not merely a bureaucratic label. For India’s poorest and most vulnerable, it is the foundation of belonging, identity, and survival.

The complete order may be read here.

Related:

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

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

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

A Long Road to Justice: CJP helps Alijon Bibi reclaim her citizenship after 2-year legal battle

The post Washed Away by Floods, Targeted by the State: Hamela Khatun’s fight for citizenship appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This came after the Calcutta High Court had quashed the deportation orders against six persons — including eight-month pregnant Sunali (Sonali) Khatun, her husband Danish Sheikh, and their eight-year-old son Sabir — and directed that all six be brought back to India within four weeks. The deadline expired on October 24, 2025, but the Union government moved the Supreme Court on October 22, just two days before the compliance period ended. Reports indicate that the families of the deported persons were preparing to seek contempt proceedings in the High Court to ensure the order’s enforcement.

Detailed report of the Calcutta High Court order may be read here.

In its plea before the apex court, the Union government has reportedly questioned the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court to hear the case, arguing that similar matters were already pending before the Delhi High Court. As per TOI, appearing for the Union, Additional Solicitor General Asok Kumar Chakrabarti contended that the petitioner, Bhodu Sheikh — Sunali’s father and resident of Birbhum — had suppressed this fact when filing the habeas corpus petition.

In brief: Calcultta HC order of repatriation

Earlier, in response to the Calcutta High Court’s direction to disclose the details of the deportation process, the Union had maintained that the six detainees were Bangladeshi nationals. However, the affidavit failed to clarify from which location or under whose authority the pushback occurred.

The High Court had taken a stern view of this omission. In its September 26 judgment in Bhodu Sheikh v. Union of India & Ors., a Division Bench comprising Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra observed that the deportation had been carried out in “hot haste,” in complete disregard of the Ministry of Home Affairs memo dated May 2, 2025, which mandates that no deportation can occur without a 30-day verification process through the home State.

Rejecting the Union’s claim that the deportees had “confessed” to being Bangladeshi nationals, the Court held that such statements made before police officers “without any procedural safeguards” violated Articles 14, 20(3), and 21 of the Constitution. The Bench noted that Sunali’s Aadhaar and PAN cards proved she was born in 2000 — making it factually impossible for her to have “entered India illegally in 1998,” as claimed by authorities.

Emphasising that “suspicion, however grave, cannot replace proof,” the judges declared the deportation and detention orders of June 24 and 26, 2025, unconstitutional. They ruled that the executive’s conduct had “crippled the constitutional grant of fairness and reasonableness” and ordered the Union government, FRRO Delhi, and Delhi Police to repatriate the six persons within four weeks via the Indian High Commission in Dhaka. A plea by the Union government to stay the order was rejected outright, with the Bench observing that “liberty once lost must be swiftly restored.”

Bangladesh Court recognition of the six victims as Indian Citizens

In a parallel and extraordinary development, a Bangladeshi court also ruled in favour of the deported families. On September 30, 2025, the Senior Judicial Magistrate of the Sadar Court in Chapainawabganj declared that all six persons — Sunali Khatun, Danish Sheikh, their minor son Sabir, Sweety Bibi (32), and her two sons aged six and sixteen — were Indian citizens, not Bangladeshis.

Citing their Aadhaar numbers and residential proof from Birbhum, the Magistrate concluded that they were “wrongfully pushed across the border” by Indian authorities. The court directed that the order be transmitted to the Indian High Commission in Dhaka for “appropriate diplomatic action,” effectively placing the onus on New Delhi to initiate their repatriation.

Detailed report may be read here.

Political Reactions: Trinamool Congress accuses Union of defiance

As the Union’s deadline to comply with the High Court’s order expired on October 24, the Trinamool Congress (TMC) accused the Union government of “brazenly defying” a judicial directive and “abandoning” its own citizens.

On October 24, according to the report of The Hindu, TMC alleged that the BJP-led Union government had “flouted the Calcutta High Court’s order with arrogance and indifference.” The party questioned: “Does being in power give BJP the licence to flout a High Court order? To ignore the suffering of women and children? To turn ordinary citizens into bargaining chips in a vindictive, performative game of power?”

According to The Hindu, the statement further said: “First these hapless people were branded Bangladeshis and dumped across the border. Then, after a long legal battle, the court found otherwise and ordered their repatriation. But the Centre has shown no urgency, no humanity, and no basic decency to bring them home.”

TMC leaders Sashi Panja (Minister for Women and Child Development) and Samirul Islam (Rajya Sabha MP and Chairman, Migrant Workers Welfare Board) condemned the Union’s inaction. As per The Hindu, Ms. Panja said that “The deportation was wrong. The Trinamool fought this battle. The central government did not take a single step to bring them back. They continued to label them as Bangladeshis so that they remain in Bangladesh.”

Mr. Islam told The Hindu that the government’s failure to act was “unconstitutional and inhuman,” noting that the Bangladesh court had already recognised the deportees as Indian citizens. He added that the West Bengal government was struggling to establish any communication with the six persons stranded across the border and that Sunali Bibi had not yet delivered her child.

Broader Context: Crackdown on Bengali-Speaking Workers

This controversy unfolds amid reports that thousands of Bengali-speaking migrant workers have been detained, interrogated, or expelled from BJP-ruled states since May 2025, under suspicion of being undocumented immigrants. As Citizens for Justice and Peace has noted, several workers were declared “foreigners” within days of their detention and pushed across the Bangladesh border, often without inquiry or notice to their home States. Human rights groups and lawyers have described these deportations as “undocumented, unconstitutional, and xenophobic.”

The Sunali Khatun deportation case — now at the centre of legal and diplomatic tensions between India and Bangladesh — has come to symbolise the dangers of executive overreach and ethnic profiling, raising critical questions about citizenship, due process, and accountability under India’s constitutional framework.

Detailed reports on such illegal deportations may be read here, here and here.

Related:

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

Gauhati High Court seeks Centre’s May 2025 deportation notification as legality of re-detention of Abdul Shiekh and Majibur Rehman is scrutinised

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

CJP Win! Gauhati HC stays deportation of Ajabha Khatun, will address bail demand on April 4

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

The post Union government challenges Calcutta High Court repatriation order, moves Supreme Court instead even as Bangladesh declares six deported Bengalis Indian citizens appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

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

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

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

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

Petitioners demand proof of verification

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

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

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

Bench Avoids Two Key Questions: Deportation claim and verification process

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

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

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

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

Legal and factual uncertainty deepens

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

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

Background: From bail to re-detention

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

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

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

Previous detailed reports may be read here.

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The order, issued by the Senior Judicial Magistrate of the Sadar Court in Chapainawabganj on September 30, pertains to two families from Birbhum district, West Bengal, including 26-year-old Sunali (Sonali) Khatun, who is in her final trimester of pregnancy, her husband Danish Sheikh, their eight-year-old son Sabir, Sweety Bibi (32), and her two sons aged six and sixteen.

According to The Indian Express, the magistrate concluded that all six individuals are Indian citizens, citing their Aadhaar card numbers and residential addresses in West Bengal as documentary proof. The order was transmitted to the Indian High Commission in Dhaka for “appropriate diplomatic action.”

Families pushed out after police sweep in Delhi

As The Quint and The Times of India reported, the families were detained from Delhi’s Rohini area in June 2025, during a police drive against “illegal Bangladeshi immigrants.” Despite presenting identity documents, Delhi Police allegedly ignored their Aadhaar cards and work records, branding them as foreigners. They were then forcibly pushed across the border in Assam on June 26, where they were arrested for “unlawful entry” and have since remained in Chapai Nawabganj jail.

Sunali’s father, Bhodu Sheikh, had filed a habeas corpus petition before the Calcutta High Court, expressing fear that his daughter’s unborn child would be rendered stateless. On September 26, a Division Bench of Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Reetobroto Kumar Mitra held that the Centre’s deportation order was illegal, castigating authorities for acting in “hot haste” and ordering the government to bring the families back within four weeks.

In Bhodu Sheikh v. Union of India & Ors., the Calcutta High Court quashed the deportation of three West Bengal residents — Sunali Khatun, her husband Danish Sheikh, and their minor son Sabir — who had been picked up by the Delhi Police during an “identity verification drive” on June 24, 2025, and deported to Bangladesh within forty-eight hours. The petitioner, Bhodu Sheikh, a resident of Birbhum, argued that his daughter and her family were Indian citizens by birth with roots and landholdings in West Bengal, and that Sunali was pregnant when she was detained. He alleged that the deportation was carried out without any inquiry, in violation of the Ministry of Home Affairs memo dated May 2, 2025, which mandates a 30-day verification process through the home State before any repatriation.

The Union of India, through the Additional Solicitor General, contended that the detainees had confessed to being Bangladeshi nationals who had entered India illegally in 1998 and had failed to produce documents proving citizenship. Rejecting this defence, the Bench of Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Reetobroto Kumar Mitra held that “suspicion, howsoever high, cannot be a substitute of actual proof,” and that a confession before a police officer “without any safeguards would be a direct infringement of Articles 14, 20(3), and 21 of the Constitution.” The Court pointed out glaring contradictions in the interrogation reports, noting that Sunali’s Aadhaar and PAN cards showed she was born in 2000, making it impossible for her to have entered India “illegally” in 1998.

Holding that the MHA memo was blatantly disregarded, the Court described the deportation as having been carried out “in hot haste,” and ruled that such acts “cripple the constitutional grant of fairness and reasonableness.” It emphasised that “the lifestyle of the people shapes the profile of the law and not vice versa,” and warned that executive discretion cannot be unfettered or whimsical. Consequently, the Court set aside the detention and deportation orders dated 24.06.2025 and 26.06.2025, directing the Union, FRRO Delhi, and Delhi Police to repatriate the family within four weeks through the Indian High Commission in Dhaka. A plea for stay was considered and rejected outright, underscoring the Bench’s message that liberty once lost must be swiftly restored.

Details of the said case may be read here.

“The People We Branded Bangladeshi Have Been Declared Indian by Bangladesh”

Reacting to the Bangladesh court’s decision, Trinamool Congress Rajya Sabha MP Samirul Islam, who also heads the West Bengal Migrant Workers’ Welfare Board, said the verdict exposed the Central government’s anti-Bengal bias and linguistic profiling.

“The very people whom our own country tried so hard to brand as Bangladeshi have now been proven to be Indians — not by us, but by Bangladesh. In a landmark verdict, a Bangladeshi court has not only declared them Indian citizens but even cited their Aadhaar card numbers and residential addresses as proof. The court’s order has been officially sent to the Indian High Commission in Dhaka, directing that all of them — including the pregnant woman from Birbhum, Sonali Khatun — be safely sent back to India” Islam wrote on X, sharing a copy of the judgment.

His social media post may be read below:

Islam confirmed that his office arranged legal aid for the families in Bangladesh and that a copy of the judgment has already reached the Indian High Commission in Dhaka. However, he noted that the six remain jailed despite the clear directive for repatriation.

Pregnant woman’s plight deepens

Social worker Mofijul Sk, who has been coordinating their case from Chapainawabganj, told The Times of India that Sunali Khatun has been crying and pleading to return home. “She kept asking, ‘How long will I have to stay here? What is our fault? Please tell them I have a daughter waiting at home,’” Mofijul recounted.

Sunali reportedly fell and injured herself in jail but was denied an ultrasound since the prison hospital lacked adequate facilities. “She is depressed and physically weak,” said Mofijul, adding that the local Indian Deputy High Commission in Rajshahi has been informed of her condition.

Diplomatic delays and legal tangles

An Indian government official told TOI that repatriation may take time, arguing that “an Aadhaar card is not proof of Indian citizenship” and that a flag meeting between the Border Security Force (BSF) and the Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB) will be necessary before the transfer.

However, lawyer Saikat Thakurata, representing Sunali’s family in the Calcutta High Court, said the process cannot be delayed on “technical excuses,” as a Bangladeshi court itself has verified their Indian nationality. “Diplomatic coordination is needed, but every day of delay worsens their suffering,” he said (TOI, Scroll).

Pattern of targeting Bengali-speaking migrants

As Citizens for Justice and Peace has noted, this case forms part of a broader pattern since May 2025 when thousands of Bengali-speaking workers—mostly Muslims—were rounded up across BJP-ruled states, including Delhi, Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Madhya Pradesh, and asked to prove citizenship. Many were detained and deported without due process, based solely on linguistic identity.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing before the Supreme Court, had earlier described these deportations as “grossly unconstitutional.”

“This lady has been pushed out forcibly from the country while pregnant, without any proof that she is a foreigner,” Bhushan had argued before a bench of Justices Surya Kant, Joymalya Bagchi, and Vipul Pancholi. “Authorities are treating the Bengali language itself as evidence of foreignness.”

Detailed reports on such illegal deportations may be read here, here and here.

Families await return amid bureaucratic silence

Meanwhile, Sweety Bibi’s brother Amir Khan told The Quint that the families have not heard any official update. “All she does is cry helplessly. No one from our village now dares to go to Delhi for work. But if we stay here, there is no work either,” he said.

Civil society activists, including Arnab Pal of the Migrant Workers’ Unity Forum, have urged the Indian government to expedite the repatriation, warning that delay could amount to criminal negligence, especially with Sunali nearing childbirth.

Related:

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

Gauhati High Court seeks Centre’s May 2025 deportation notification as legality of re-detention of Abdul Shiekh and Majibur Rehman is scrutinised

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

CJP Win! Gauhati HC stays deportation of Ajabha Khatun, will address bail demand on April 4

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

The post Bangladesh Court declares six deported Bengalis as Indian citizens, orders their repatriation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

Background and earlier hearings

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

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

Arguments before the Court

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

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

Court’s observations

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

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

Order

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

The Court’s order states:

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

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

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

From “D-Voter” to Tribunal notice

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

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

CJP Assam Team with Jarina Bibi outside her home

CJP steps in

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

CJP secured:

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

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

The Tribunal’s legal findings

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

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

The Tribunal thus concluded:

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

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

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

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

The human cost of citizenship battles

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

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

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

Why this case matters

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

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

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

The complete order may be read here.

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background: A trail of changing claims

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

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

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

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

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

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

Details of the previous hearings may be read here.

Hearing of July 18: The ‘wrong Doyjan’?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sharp legal and ethical questions

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

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

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

The order may be read here:

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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