On August 18, during the hearing on connected writ petitions, Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi expressed his strong reservations, remarking:

“3,000 bighas! The entire district? What is going on? 3,000 bighas allotted to a private company? We know how barren the land is… 3,000 bighas? What kind of decision is this? Is this some kind of joke or what? Your need is not the issue—the public interest is the issue.”

According to LiveLaw, the counsel for Mahabal Cement argued that the land allotted comprised only barren areas and was required for the company’s operations. However, the bench did not accept this contention and directed the North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council (NCHAC) to produce the records and policy basis for granting such an unusually large tract of land.

The court underscored that Dima Hasao is a Sixth Schedule district under the Constitution of India, where priority must be given to safeguarding the rights and interests of the tribal communities. It further observed that the proposed allotment site in Umrangso falls within an environmentally sensitive zone, home to hot springs, migratory bird habitats, and diverse wildlife.

In its order, the Court noted:

“A cursory glance into the facts of the case would reveal that the land which has been sought to be allotted is about 3000 bighas which itself appears to be extraordinary.”

The real story is tribal land rights in Assam

Several users, including the official handles of the Congress and CPI(M), claimed that the land was being handed over to the Adani Group. The conglomerate was forced to issue a formal statement on August 18, calling the claims “baseless” and clarifying that it has no connection with the cement company in question.

This misattribution, however, distracted attention from the real conflict: the struggle of tribal villagers in Sixth Schedule areas of Assam against land allotments that threaten their customary rights.

Notably, Newslaundry had earlier documented local opposition to other projects in Dima Hasao, including Ambuja Cement’s limestone mining project, spread over 1,200 bighas and linked to the Adani Group, which too has faced stiff protests from villagers fearing displacement.

The Company at the Centre: Mahabal Cement

The dispute at the heart of the viral video involves Mahabal Cement Pvt. Ltd., which received an allotment of around 3,000 bighas in Umrangso – an environmental hotspot known for its hot springs, migratory bird stopovers, and diverse wildlife.

As per a report in Newslaundry, since December 2024, 22 residents of Nobdi Longku Kro and Chotolarpheng villages have been challenging the allotment in court. They allege that the Dima Hasao Autonomous Council (DAHC) granted the land without following due process.

A sixth schedule district and tribal land customs

Dima Hasao, established as a Sixth Schedule district in 1951, is administered by the North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council (NCHAC), which manages land rights and governance for the predominantly tribal population.

The district contains both surveyed and un-surveyed land. While surveyed land falls under council administration, un-surveyed land is governed by tribal customs, where gaon buras (village headmen) distribute land and collect taxes on behalf of the council.

As per the report in Newslaundry, the petitioners contend that their families have lawfully cultivated and lived on these lands since 1975, paying taxes through gaon buras. The land, they say, is communal property under tribal custom.

But in 2024, villagers were informed by revenue officials that their land had been acquired for Mahabal Cement. Some residents claim that the local patwari coerced them into signing No Objection Certificates (NOCs) and accepting cheques of ₹2 lakh as compensation.

On May 16, 2024, residents of Nobdi Longku Kro submitted a formal objection letter to the DAHC, accusing officials of using “coercion” and “disinformation” to force through an “involuntary acquisition.”

The court battle

The legal fight over the land began earlier. In November 2024, a PIL filed by an activist on behalf of the villagers was disposed of by the Gauhati High Court, which said residents could return if new circumstances arose. By December, villagers filed a fresh petition.

• On February 2, 2025, the High Court directed authorities to explain how such a vast tract of land – 3,000 bighas – was allotted to Mahabal Cement. It also asked the DAHC to update the court on land demarcation related to the allotment.
• By April 2025, the DAHC submitted an affidavit stating that a resolution had been passed in January to provide alternate land to the affected residents. A March 6 notification confirmed the re-allotment of plots about 500 meters away, in equal proportion to what was acquired, along with compensation for agricultural use.
• Meanwhile, Mahabal Cement filed a separate writ petition, complaining of “disruption” of its cement project. The court later clubbed both petitions for joint hearing.

It was during the August 12 hearing of the merged petitions that Justice Medhi’s remarks went viral. The court observed:

“A cursory glance into the facts of the case would reveal that the land which has been sought to be allotted is about 3,000 bighas, which itself appears to be extraordinary.”

The Bench also stated:

“This Court directs Shri C. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, NCHAC to obtain the records containing the policy to allot such a huge chunk of land measuring 3000 Bighas to a factory. The aforesaid direction has been given by taking into account that the district is a 6th Scheduled District under the Constitution of India where the priority has to be given to the rights and interest of the tribal people residing there. Further, the area involved is Umrangso in the district of Dima Hasao which is known as an environment hotspot containing hot spring, stop over for migratory birds, wild life etc.”

While the company claimed the land was granted through a tender-based mining lease, the bench questioned whether such a decision was compatible with Sixth Schedule protections for tribal rights and the ecological sensitivity of the area.

The matter has now been listed for September 1, 2025, with the court directing the NCHAC to produce the full policy records behind the allotment.

The complete order may be read here.

Shutdown called in Tinsukia as tribal groups resist state cabinet move

As per a report of The Hindu, massive protests broke out in Diphu, the headquarters of Karbi Anglong district, on Wednesday (August 20) as tribal groups opposed the Assam government’s move to hand over tribal land to large corporate houses.

Karbi Anglong is one of three districts in Assam governed under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, which safeguards tribal rights and provides autonomy to local councils.

The protest in Diphu was led by All-Party Hills Leaders Conference president Jones Ingti Kathar, with demonstrators raising slogans against Tuliram Ronghang, the BJP-led Chief Executive Member of the Karbi Anglong Autonomous District Council area.

Assam Jatiya Parishad president Lurinjyoti Gogoi, who joined the rally, accused Mr. Ronghang of colluding with corporate houses and “betraying the interests of tribal and indigenous communities.” He contrasted the “₹200-crore mansion” allegedly linked to Mr. Ronghang with the “makeshift huts” where hill tribals continue to live, accusing the BJP of endangering the cultural and economic survival of these communities, according to The Hindu report.

Related:

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

“She Can’t Just Disappear”: Gauhati High Court told as state fails to produce handover certificate in Doyjan Bibi “pushback” case

The post Gauhati High Court questions allotment of 3000 Bighas of land to private cement company in Assam appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a writ petition case that continues to spotlight the shadowy and undocumented removal of Bengali-speaking Muslim women from Assam, the Gauhati High Court was, on July 25, 2025, confronted with an admission from the State: Doyjan Bibi has been pushed back into Bangladesh. But even as officials claimed the act was carried out by the Border Security Force (BSF) at the request of Assam Police, they failed to produce any certificate, documentation, or acknowledgement showing that the Bangladeshi authorities ever received her.

The matter was being heard in the petition filed by Abdul Rejjak, who has been seeking answers on the whereabouts of his wife, Doyjan Bibi, ever since she was allegedly picked up from their home in Chirang district on the night of May 25, 2025 — without an arrest memo, warrant, or production before a magistrate. The legal aid in this case is being provided by Citizens for Justice and Peace.

On Friday, the FT counsel presented a fresh set of documents from the Assam BSF, purporting to show that Doyjan Bibi, declared a foreigner earlier by a Foreigners Tribunal, had been handed over by the SP (Border), Goalpara to the BSF Sector Headquarters at Panbari on May 26. She was then “pushed back” into Bangladesh the next day, on May 27, from the area of responsibility (AOR) of the 2503 BSF Battalion.

But the documents contained a discrepancy: they identified Doyjan Bibi as the wife of Abdul Munnaf. This triggered renewed alarm. The petitioner, Abdul Rejjak, has consistently identified himself by that name — no alias, no variations.

The Court, during the hearing today, noted that the BSF documents suggested Rejjak’s alias was Abdul Munnaf. But petitioner’s counsel Mrinmoy Dutta categorically denied this:

“I do not use or acknowledge any other name. In earlier court filings, including petitions filed by Doyjan Bibi herself, she clearly stated that her husband is Abdul Rejjak. There is no alias.”

The Bench then confirmed that all identifying information, Doyjan’s name, her father’s name, and her Foreigners Tribunal case number, fully matched the petitioner’s claim. The conclusion was unavoidable: the woman declared a foreigner and pushed back was indeed the petitioner’s wife.

That led to the core issue — one that the State has failed to answer since the case began in June: Where is the proof that Doyjan Bibi was handed over to any Bangladeshi official?

Petitioners: “This is not deportation, this is disappearance”

With mounting frustration, Advocate Dutta confronted the State’s silence: “If they have handed over Doyjan Bibi, they must produce the handover certificate. This is the procedure — a person who is pushed back or deportation must be documented. Otherwise, this is not deportation, this is disappearance. It amounts to human trafficking.”

He continued: “Pushback is a term used for people apprehended while crossing borders illegally — not for detainees removed from detention. In this case, the woman was allegedly in custody and removed. That cannot be called pushback, especially without any formal records.”

The FT counsel admitted, on record, that no such certificate of handover existed. There was no documentation from Bangladeshi authorities confirming receipt. There was no record of the border handover. This, despite the fact that in other cases, the May 2, 2025 Ministry of Home Affairs notification and the Ministry’s own deportation SOP, which lays down that full records must be maintained for every such action.

Dutta underscored this contradiction: “They are not following their own rules. In their own guidelines, deportation must be documented. If they say they have removed someone across the international border, they must show to whom. Otherwise, the person is simply missing.”

Bench: “If there is an illegality, then you must make that challenge in your petition”

The Bench observed that if the petitioner wished to contest the legality of the procedure followed for the pushback, a separate prayer would have to be made: “You will have to file a fresh petition, or amend this one. We cannot decide the legality of pushback unless you specifically challenge it.”

Dutta pushed back: “But the petition is the challenge. The case is that the petitioner’s wife was picked up and has not been seen since. The State now says they pushed her back, but can produce no document to show to whom. That itself proves disappearance.”

Bench: “But that is not the present prayer. You must frame it clearly that the pushback was illegal and the procedure is being challenged.”

Petitioner’s counsel asked for time to consider whether to amend the writ petition or move a fresh one.  The Court recorded the State’s version that Doyjan Bibi was “sent back to Bangladesh” but granted the petitioner two weeks to respond. In doing so, the Court did not accept that the State’s failure to follow procedure extinguishes the claim being raised by the petitioner. Instead, it left the door open for legal escalation.

Background: A case of vanishing in plain sight

This case has unfolded through disturbing phases of State inconsistency. At the June 16 hearing, the State initially claimed, based on telephonic instruction, that Doyjan Bibi was in Kokrajhar Holding Centre. But that turned out to be false. By June 25, the State admitted she had been handed over to the BSF. The BSF later said she was “pushed back,” but until today, no certificate of deportation, no arrest memo, no handover documentation, and no FIR or judicial oversight has been placed on record. The only thing the State has submitted are internal letters stating that Doyjan Bibi was “handed over”.

Constitutional Stakes: Is the State Above Its Own Procedure?

The issue now is no longer just Doyjan Bibi — but whether the Indian State can pick up a person it has labelled a “foreigner,” and push them across an international border without any formal deportation order, without any certificate of receipt, and without leaving behind even a scrap of documentation.

The Gauhati High Court has already noted in previous cases that “foreigners” are still entitled to fundamental rights under Article 21. The State’s own 2025 guidelines require recorded and certified deportation through diplomatic channels.

The petitioner has rightly asked: “If there is no record of where she was sent, or to whom she was handed, how can this be called legal deportation?”

The Court will now hear the matter again after two weeks. But until then, the core question remains: Can a woman in State custody simply vanish without a trace — and the system call that deportation?

Details of the previous hearings may be read here.

Related:

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

Confusion over identity clouds ‘pushback case’ of Doyjan Bibi, Gauhati High Court directs state to verify true identity and whereabouts

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

The post “Humans Cannot Just Disappear”: Gauhati High Court told in Doyjan Bibi case as State fails to produce pushback documents appeared first on SabrangIndia.

At the hearing, the petitioners strongly contested the justification for re-detention, calling the State’s affidavit “vague” and insufficient, particularly in light of the fact that no bail cancellation was ever sought. The Court, signalling its concern, directed that the Union Government’s May 2, 2025 notification on deportation procedures, cited by the State as the basis for renewed custody, must be placed on record before any further hearing. The matter is now listed for July 25. CJP has been providing legal aid for these two cases.

Petitioner’s Counsel: Detention is illegal, affidavit vague

Appearing for both petitioners, Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta argued that the State’s latest affidavit, submitted pursuant to earlier directions, was “as vague as it can be”, particularly pointing to paragraph 7, which failed to provide any specific grounds or documentation justifying why the two men were re-detained.

Dutta submitted that the issue was not verification, but detention; that factual or documentary verification for deportation could easily have been undertaken without arresting and detaining individuals who were already on court-sanctioned bail. He stressed that the men had been released not merely due to COVID, but on the explicit ground of prolonged detention and that the Supreme Court order under which they were released was still binding.

“The SC order is not just a COVID-related release, it applies to those who have completed more than 2 or 3 years in detention. That order has not been recalled. This is a clear violation of that binding direction,” Dutta submitted before the division bench comprising Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Susmita Phukan Khaund.

State Counsel: COVID-era bail was temporary, deportation now underway

Opposing the petitioners’ challenge, the FT counsel reiterated the State’s position that the detainees were previously released while they awaited deportation, but deportation was stalled due to the pandemic. With the situation having now changed, the Government of India and Assam are “initiating deportations”, and for that, verification of identity and nationality is underway.

He claimed that the individuals were “not in detention centres but in holding centres”, and that such custody was merely to complete verification before deportation could be effected.

However, the Court appeared unconvinced.

Bench seeks clarity: “Where is the notification?”

The Division pressed the State on its failure to produce any official notification along with the affidavit that would justify treating these detentions as part of a lawful deportation process.

“Where is the notification? You’ve not annexed anything to support this position,” the Court remarked during the hearing.

The Bench observed that as per UN Conventions and principles of international law, some form of verification may be necessary before deportation. However, the counsel for the petitioners emphasised that verification alone does not authorise detention, especially when the person is on standing bail under a court order.

The Court directed the Ministry of Home Affairs’ (MHA) May 2, 2025 notification on deportation to be brought on record. Advocate Dutta was also asked to prepare submissions specifically addressing the State’s claim that deportation proceedings justify the detention of bail-compliant individuals. The matter is now listed for July 25, 2025.

Previous hearings may be referred here.

Background

Both Abdul Sheikh and Majibur Rehman were declared foreigners by FTs in Assam and detained for more than two years. In 2021, they were released under the Supreme Court’s April 2020 directions, which permitted conditional release of detainees who had completed prolonged detention terms and were not facing imminent deportation.

From the time of their release, both men had been consistently appearing before their respective police stations, as required by the bail conditions. Their last attendance was recorded in May 2025, shortly before they were suddenly picked up again by police and transferred to the Kokrajhar Holding Centre — without any order cancelling their bail or citing violation of its terms.

The ongoing hearings raise a serious constitutional question — can individuals, released on binding bail orders, be re-detained without cancellation of bail, merely because the State has decided to restart deportation processes?

In earlier hearings on June 25 and June 26, the Court had already recorded the State’s admission that both Abdul Sheikh and Majibur Rehman had been fully compliant with their bail conditions. Despite this, the State continued to defend its action on the ground that deportation is now feasible, and detention is part of the “preparatory process”.

The petitioners have argued that such detentions, without any recall of prior judicial orders, are a direct breach of Article 21, and threaten to render the judicial system meaningless if State agencies can override court orders without due process.

Related:

Confusion over identity clouds ‘pushback case’ of Doyjan Bibi, Gauhati High Court directs state to verify true identity and whereabouts

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

India’s Stealthy Pushback: Thousands of alleged “Bangladeshi immigrants” deported without due process across states

The post Gauhati High Court demands Centre’s deportation order amid mounting legal questions over re-detention of bail-compliant individuals 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 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.

On June 16, the Gauhati High Court declined to grant interim protection in the petition filed by Torap Ali, but directed the Standing Counsel for the Foreigners Tribunal to obtain a verification report from the concerned police station regarding whether the two detained persons — Abu Bakkar and Akbar Ali — were complying with the weekly reporting conditions of their COVID-era bail prior to being picked up again by Assam Border Police on May 24, 2025.

This crucial direction, focusing on attendance verification, may determine the legality of their continued detention — especially if it is shown that the men were fulfilling the conditions set out in their 2020–21 bail orders issued under the Supreme Court’s directions. The said order was delivered by the Division Bench of Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Malasri Nandi during the third hearing of the said matter.

As the matter was taken up, the Standing Counsel for the Foreigners Tribunal requested two additional days to file the State’s affidavit, explaining that instructions were awaited. The Court granted this request and listed the matter for June 20, 2025.

The petitioner’s counsel requested that the Court clarify that no deportation or further adverse action should take place until the affidavit is filed and the matter heard. However, the Court declined to grant protection, after learning that the FT declaration had earlier been challenged and dismissed, and that no fresh challenge had been filed prior to the detention. The Court observed that it could only grant such protection in cases whether the foreigner status was being challenged.

Despite refusing interim protection, the Court gave a key procedural direction: it instructed the FT counsel to obtain particulars from the concerned police station regarding whether the detainees, who were earlier released on bail, had been complying with their reporting obligations.

This police verification is now central to the next phase of the case — as bail compliance under judicially issued orders may raise serious questions about whether the re-arrest and continued detention were in violation of due process.

The June 16 order may be read below.

Why attendance matters?

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.

If the police attendance register shows that they were reporting as required up to May 2025, the State may face questions on whether the re-arrest was in complete violation of lawful bail protections, and whether procedural safeguards under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution were ignored.

It is essential to note that the High Court’s direction in Torap Ali case to verify police station attendance mirrors the decisive factor that led to relief in the Mozida Begum v. Union of India and ors case that was issued by the Gauhati High Court in the same day. In that matter, the detainee — Hachinur @ Hasinur — was released from custody after the Gauhati High Court found that he had been complying with the weekly police reporting conditions of his COVID-era bail. The Court held that re-arresting a bail-compliant individual without cancelling the earlier order was “expressly illegal.” That case hinged on the submission of a signed attendance sheet from the local police station, which the bench treated as conclusive proof of compliance. In Torap Ali, the Court has now taken the first step in that same direction — ordering the FT counsel to obtain a similar verification report from the concerned police station. Whether the detainees were regularly reporting may prove equally pivotal in determining the legality of their continued detention. (Details of the Moziba Begum case may be read here.)

Summary of prior proceedings

1. May 28, 2025

The matter was first mentioned; FT counsel stated they had not received the pleadings. The Court adjourned the matter to the next day.

The order may be read here.

2. May 29, 2025

Petitioner informed the Court that Abu Bakkar and Akbar Ali had been re-arrested on May 24, despite being on bail and complying with conditions. The Court sought information from the State regarding their custody status.

The order may be read here.

3. June 4, 2025

The FT counsel submitted that both men were now lodged at Kokrajhar Holding Centre. The Court:

• Granted family visitation rights;
• Allowed the petitioner to obtain the detainees’ signatures on vakalatnamas;
• Directed the State to file an affidavit explaining the basis of arrest and detention by June 16.

The order may be read here.

4. June 16, 2025

At the hearing on June 16, no affidavit had been filed by the State, despite the Court’s June 4 direction. The FT counsel sought an extension of two days. Crucially, the Court directed that details regarding police station attendance must be obtained and submitted, especially since the bail orders were conditional upon weekly reporting. The police station records may now become central to the Court’s evaluation of whether:

• The re-arrest was lawful;
• Bail conditions were violated;
• Or whether, as seen in other recent cases, procedural norms were bypassed without basis.

The matter will next be heard on June 20, 2025.

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The post Gauhati HC directs verification of police records to see if detained men were following bail conditions before re-arrest appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

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

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

June 16, 2025: Court orders immediate release

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Based on the above arguments, the Court stated that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background: Bail, compliance, and sudden pickup

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

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

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

June 6, 2025: Habeas petition admitted; deportation stayed

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

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

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

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

June 11, 2025: Court flags potential illegality of detention

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

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

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

Accordingly, the Court:

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

Detailed report may be read here.

Significance: A judicial stand against state overreach in citizenship matters

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

It demonstrates that:

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

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

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In hearings on two separate writ petitions, filed with the legal aid of Citizens for Justice and Peace, the High Court bench of Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Malasri Nandi directed the State and FT counsel to place on record whether the two individuals are currently in custody or have been deported. The matter is listed for further hearing on June 9. During the hearing of the case, the bench had orally remarked that the families of the individuals detained must be made aware about their current status, barring the fact whether they are citizens or not.

Yet for the moment, the Court refused to examine whether these detentions and potential deportations were lawful — putting aside concerns raised in the petitions about the arbitrary nature of the arrests, the absence of legal safeguards, and the broader climate of impunity surrounding forced deportations in Assam.

Background to the cases

Abdul Sheikh and Majibar Rahman were both declared “foreigners” in FT proceedings in 2018 and 2019 respectively. The orders, annexed with the petitions filed by their family members, contain minimal reasoning and do not identify any specific alternative nationality. Both individuals were subsequently detained in a detention centre but were released after completing two years in custody, in line with Supreme Court directions issued during the pandemic.

For context, the Supreme Court, in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1045 of 2018 (Supreme Court Legal Services Committee v. Union of India & Anr.), passed an order dated on May 10, 2019 directing the conditional release of such detainees who had completed more than three years of detention. Subsequently, in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1 of 2020, the Supreme Court in its April 13, 2020 order further reduced the mandatory detention period to two years, permitting release subject to bond, sureties, and biometric submission.

Following their release, both men had been complying with the conditions imposed — including weekly reporting to the police station. As per the petition filed by both the petitioners, it has been indicated that both last signed the register at Kajolgaon Police Station on May 21, just four days before they were picked up.

Both Abdul Sheikh, a father from Chatibargaon village, and Majibar Rahman, a daily wage labourer from Madhyam Salijhora, were forcibly picked up from their homes by police personnel from Kajolgaon Police Station at around 11:30 PM on May 25, 2025. There was no arrest memo, no warrant, no formal cancellation of their earlier release on bail. The families’ petitions — filed by their son and wife respectively — describe how the next morning, when family members rushed to the police station, they were refused information, not allowed to meet the men, and turned away without explanation.

When the families attempted to file an FIR, the police refused to accept it. Only after mailing complaints by registered post to senior police officials did, they create a paper trail. Enquiries at Matia Detention Centre yielded no information. In the days that followed, disturbing reports began emerging — of individuals declared “foreigners” being secretly pushed into Bangladesh in alleged violation of international law and the Constitution.

It has been emphasised in their petitions that they were arrested from their homes without any formal warrant, arrest memo, or cancellation of bail. Family members claim they were not informed of the men’s whereabouts and were not permitted to file an FIR in person — ultimately resorting to registered post to communicate their complaints to senior officials.

Legal relief sought by the families

Both petitions — filed by Sanidul Sheikh (son of Abdul) and Rejiya Khatun (wife of Majibar) — assert that the men are Indian citizens by birth. They own property, were enrolled as voters in Assam, and have never left the country. Their parents too were Indian by birth and long-time residents of Assam. But due to poverty, illiteracy, and lack of legal support, they never challenged the FT opinions. And as their petitions point out, India’s citizenship law does not require Indian-born citizens to carry specific “citizenship documents.”

The families, through their petitions, had sought a writ of habeas corpus or similar direction, requiring the State to produce the two individuals before a competent court or magistrate. They also sought an injunction against any deportation action without following due legal process, including the verification of nationality in accordance with established procedures.

The petitions specifically cited the Rajubala Das v. Union of India matter pending before the Supreme Court, in which the State of Assam has filed an affidavit outlining the procedural steps for deportation (September 2023), including diplomatic verification and coordination with the Ministry of External Affairs. Importantly, neither Abdul Sheikh nor Majibar Rahman were named among those individuals alleged to have violated bail or absconded. Additionally, their release orders were never cancelled. They remained fully compliant — until they were suddenly made to disappear.

The petitions also argued that the FT declarations lacked substantive reasoning and did not conclusively establish particular foreign nationality — raising concerns about possible statelessness in the event of deportation. However, the High Court did not entertain this line of argument in today’s hearing.

Court’s observations

In both matters, the Gauhati High Court acknowledged the families’ right to be informed of the current status of their relatives. It directed the State and FT counsel to submit details regarding their location and, if applicable, the fact of deportation. In both cases, the bench directed the State and FT counsel to “provide information regarding the current position of the person” — and “if deported, information for the same shall be provided.”

However, the Court declined to issue notice to the Union of India or pass any interim order restraining deportation. It observed that the FT orders had not been appealed or set aside and thus stood as the operative legal determination of the individuals’ status.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on Monday, June 9, 2025.

These cases highlight an increasingly common scenario in Assam, where individuals declared as “foreigners” by FTs — often based on limited evidence or ex parte proceedings — are at risk of removal from the country even years after release on bail. The petitions raise procedural questions around arrest, detention, and deportation, particularly in situations where nationality remains unverified and legal safeguards appear to have been bypassed.

While today’s direction provides some relief to the families in terms of official disclosure, the High Court’s refusal to examine the legality of potential deportations or procedural lapses may leave broader concerns unresolved.

The order in Sanidul Sheikh vs UOI and Ors may be read below.

The order in Rejiya Khatun vs UOI and Ors may be read below.

Supreme Court’s recent directives in Rajubala vs Union of India case

In an Order passed in this matter on March 21, 2025, the SC had inter alia stated that:

“Under the Order dated 4th February, 2025, a direction was issued to the Union of India to deal with the second category of persons where the Tribunal has declared that the persons are not Indian nationals but their nationality is not known. We grant time till end of April, 2025 to Union of India to respond on the issue of second category of persons highlighted in order dated 4th February, 2025 which will be considered on 6th May, 2025. 

Those persons who are detained in the detention camp desire to challenge orders declaring their nationality, the Assam State Legal Service Authority shall provide necessary assistance to them.”

2. The above Order was passed after the Affidavit of the State of Assam filed with details of 63 Detainees on March 20, 2025. Deportation, following due procedure, was outlined in an earlier affidavit in the same case dated September 5, 2023. The said affidavit had been filed by of Arvind Sharma, Director, Ministry of Home Affairs in which the procedure for deportation was outlined.

A previous detailed Order of the Supreme Court on February 4, 2025, had made strong observations on the fact that addresses and nationality of several persons detailed by them were not available with the union government. Dates of the National Verification Status purportedly sent to the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and other details are also vague, states the order.

These issues become relevant given the public declarations of the Assam authorities that the current sweep on residents (in the guise of calling them “illegal immigrants”) has been undertaken following a recent Order of the Supreme Court.

The SC Orders dated March 21 and February 4 may be read here and here.

Related:

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

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

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

The post Gauhati HC directs State to confirm custody or deportation of two men detained in midnight police action in Assam appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The division bench, presided over by Chief Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury, sought to address the issue of compensation for the kin of inmates who passed away while in detention. The court highlighted that out of 31 cases of death in custody, only one had undergone an enquiry by a magistrate and just one case received compensation from the Inspector General (Prisons), Assam, to the bereaved family.

During the hearing on 20th July, 2023 Ms. R.S. Chowdhury, counsel for the petitioners, drew attention to the affidavit filed by the State authorities on12th May 2023 which shed light on the existing situation. It was disclosed that only one case of the 31 deaths had undergone an inquiry, and only one family had been granted compensation under Section 357A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CRPC).

Taking note of this information, the court directed Mr. B. Gogoi, the government counsel, to get instructions from the State on whether they intended to provide compensation to the families of all prisoners who died in custody or not. This compensation would be granted by considering them as victims under Section 357A of the CrPC.

Furthermore, the petitioners’ counsel pointed out a significant and concerning aspect of the data: 13 out of the 31 reported deaths occurred within the confines of Goalpara Jail. The court has instructed the Government counsel to seek clarification on this specific circumstance from the record.

The PIL filed by Studio Nilima Collaborative Network for Research and Capacity Building aims to address the rising number of deaths of inmates declared as foreign nationals, particularly within Goalpara District Jail. The Court had previously directed the Advocate General of Assam to provide information on whether magisterial enquiries under Section 176 of the CrPC had been conducted in cases involving prisoner deaths.

The matter has been listed next for further consideration on 25th of July.

Order can be read here.

Related:

Assam CM sparks outrage for remarks on ‘Miya’ Community, criticised for divisive language

Horrors of Citizenship Crisis seem endless to Harimohan Barman as CJP steps in to help

Assam Woman granted Indian Citizenship after CJP’s tireless advocacy

Resolute and Determined: CJP Assam makes headway through 2023

The post Gauhati High Court seeks clarity from Assam government on compensation for death of detainees appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On March 3, the Gauhati High Court passed an order stating that the principle of res judicata will not apply if the order of the Tribunal has not provided a reasoned order, i.e. not provided a substantial resonating for their decision. The division bench of Justice Achintya Malla Bujor Barua and Justice Robin Phukan was hearing the case of one Rafikul Islam, who had approached the Gauhati High Court against the impugned order of Foreigners’ Tribunal, passed in 2022, which had declared him a foreigner.

As per the facts of the case, the petitioner had been declared a foreigner by the Foreigners’ Tribunal (II), Sonitpur in F.T. Case No.05/2019, by an order dated September 8, 2022. Thus, he was deemed to be a non-citizen of India who had entered the State of Assam after March 25, 1971.

Appealing against the impugned order, the petitioner had contended that there was an earlier round of proceeding against him in the same Foreigners’ Tribunal, in F.T. Case No.102/2014,in which an order had already been passed declaring the petitioner as not a foreigner. Referencing to the same, the petitioner had submitted that a subsequent proceeding before the same Tribunal was barred by the principles of res judicata.

“The principles of res judicata under the law requires two conditions precedent to be satisfied i.e., the earlier dispute must be between the same parties and secondly, the issue between the parties must be decided. The very condition that the issue must be decided requires that it must be decided by a reasoned order and not by an order merely depicting the view that the Foreigners Tribunal may have taken without any reason. From such point of view, we are unable to accept the plea of the petitioner that the subsequent proceeding against the petitioner…is barred by the principles of res judicata.”(Para 6)

Deciding on the said case, the bench noted that the opinion rendered by the Foreigners’ Tribunal in the previous round of litigation (2014) had not given any reason behind declaring the petitioner as not a foreigner.

 “An unreasoned order is unacceptable in law, more so, when the said order is relied upon in a subsequent proceeding to take the plea of the subsequent proceeding being barred by the principles of res judicata,” the bench stated in its order. .”(Para 5)

However, keeping in mind the interests of justice and the petitioner, the court remanded the matter back to the Tribunal to take up the records of both cases and pass a reasoned order based on the materials that were available in the two proceedings.

The bench stated “But, however, for the interest of justice, we remand the matter back to the Foreigners’ Tribunal (Second) Sonitpur to take up the records of F.T. Case No.102/2014 as well as F.T. Case No.05/2019 and pass a reasoned order on the materials that may be available in the two proceedings.”(Para 7)

The court ordered the petitioner to file an appeal with the Tribunal on April 6 and stated that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner until the Tribunal issues a reasoned order.

The order of the High Court can be read here.

What does the law say?

A speaking order or a reasoned order is considered as the third pillar of natural justice. When an adjudicating body provides a reason for the decision they make while hearing a case, the decision is referred to as a reasoned decision. The recording of reasons in support of the conclusions reached by the Courts in our judicial system has been recognised since the system’s inception. A litigant’s right to know the reasons for the Judges’ decisions is an essential one. Even a brief recording of reasoned opinion justifying the decision would be sufficient to pass the test of a reasoned order or judgment.

A non-speaking, unfounded, or ambiguous order passed or judgment delivered without taking into consideration the relevant facts, evidence available, and the law attracted thereto has always been considered inappropriate and judicially de-recognised by the courts. The mere use of the words or language of a provision in an order or judgment without any mention of the relevant facts and evidence has always been treated by the superior courts as an order incapable of withstanding the test of a judicially passed order.

Related:

Gauhati HC overturns FT’s order declaring a resident of Assam as Foreigner

Rescuing people from statelessness: CJP in Assam, a 2022 overview

CJP helps another hapless Muslim individual in securing bail: Gauhati HC

Floods and landslides cannot deter CJP’s Assam team

Assam man forced to prove Indian citizenship four times!

Cannot keep ‘suspected foreigners’ with ordinary criminals: Gauhati High Court

Families protest arrests as questions mount on child marriage crackdown in Assam

Crackdown on child marriage claims four lives, including three women and one child

Asia’ biggest permanent “detention camp”, Matia Transit Camp, opens in Assam

The post Gauhati HC hears Res-Judicata plea in petitioner’s case, citing dual proceedings in same court appeared first on SabrangIndia.