The MHA filed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) on July 1, challenging the single-judge order passed by Justice Rahul Bharti, which had strongly criticised Rashid’s removal as a violation of her legal status and fundamental rights. On July 3, the Division Bench led by Chief Justice Arun Palli admitted the appeal and granted an interim stay, halting the enforcement of the repatriation order until further hearing.

The stay now places the continued suffering of a woman already rendered vulnerable, alone in a country she has no ties to, on procedural pause, despite the gravity of findings already made by the High Court in her favour.

Justice Bharti’s June 6 order: “A case of constitutional SOS”

Justice Bharti’s order had framed Rashid’s deportation as not only procedurally flawed but morally and constitutionally indefensible. Rashid had arrived in India in the late 1980s, married an Indian citizen, and lived in Jammu ever since. Her LTV had been renewed annually, and she had applied for Indian citizenship in 1996, which remains pending to this day.

On April 29, in the aftermath of the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack, in which 26 people were killed. The MHA issued an order cancelling visas of Pakistani nationals, but explicitly exempted LTV holders and Pakistani women married to Indian citizens. Rashid fell under both protected categories. Yet, early that morning, local police took her from her home and drove her to the Attari border, from where she was deported without a court order, without legal representation, and despite ongoing processing of her LTV renewal.

Justice Bharti took note of this in harsh terms, noting that Rashid’s deportation:

“This Court is bearing in mind background that the reference that the petitioner was having LTV status at relevant point of time which per-se may not have warranted her deportation but without examining her case in better perspective and coming up with a proper order with respect to her deportation from the authorities concerned, still she came to be forced out.” (Para 4)

He went on to declare that the Ministry of Home Affairs must retrieve her from Pakistan, stating:

“Human rights are the most sacrosanct component of a human life and, therefore, there are occasions when a constitutional court is supposed to come up with SOS like indulgence notwithstanding the merits and demerits of a case which can be adjudicated only upon in due course of time and therefore, this Court is coming up with a direction to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India to bring back the petitioner from her deportation.” (Para 3)

“Given the exceptional nature of facts and circumstances of the case whereby the petitioner-Rakshanda Rashid wife of Sheikh Zahoor Ahmed has been purportedly deported to Pakistan in the recent drive undertaken by the Government of India post Pahalgam carnage, this Court is constrained to direct the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India to retrieve the petitioner back to J&K, India so as to facilitate the reunion of the petitioner with her husband-Sheikh Zahoor Ahmed in Jammu.” (Para 5)

The order gave the Union Government ten days to comply, listing the matter for July 1 for a compliance update. (Detailed piece may be read here.)

MHA’s Appeal: Technical objections, procedural deflection

Instead of complying, the MHA filed an appeal just as the deadline approached. In its Letters Patent Appeal, the MHA did not contest the humanitarian facts of the case or the petitioner’s prolonged residence in India. Instead, it advanced technical objections that sought to side-line the substance of the June 6 order.

Key arguments made by the MHA in the appeal included:

• LTV not valid at time of deportation: The MHA claimed that as of April 29, 2025, Ms. Rashid’s long-term visa had expired, and therefore she was no longer under legal protection. They argued that the exemption granted post-Pahalgam was not applicable, since the LTV “did not exist” on the date of deportation.
• Delay in filing LTV renewal application: The Ministry alleged that the LTV renewal application had been filed on March 8, not January as claimed by the petitioner. This discrepancy was used to argue that the application was late and hence invalid.
• Order interferes with sovereign deportation powers: The MHA asserted that the single-judge order unlawfully encroaches upon the sovereign and executive powers of the Union Government to determine immigration and deportation matters, particularly in the wake of a serious national security incident.
• Judicial overreach in “retrieving” a foreign national: The Ministry argued that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the Union Government to bring a foreign national back into Indian Territory—an act, they claimed, that rests exclusively with the executive under foreign and immigration law.

These arguments, framed as legal proceduralism, evaded the central concern raised by Justice Bharti: that even the deportation of a foreign national must conform to constitutional safeguards, especially when the person in question has lived in India for 38 years and has not committed any offence.

Facts that contradict the MHA’s version

The MHA’s factual claims are sharply contradicted by documentary evidence provided in the original writ petition:

• Email dated April 26 from the FRRO acknowledged that the LTV renewal application was under process.
• Email dated May 9 confirmed that the application had been forwarded to higher authorities for approval.
• These emails undermine the MHA’s claim that no valid application existed at the time of deportation.

Further, Ms. Rashid’s daughter, Fatima Sheikh, told The Hindu that the application was filed in January, not March, and that the March 8 date was deliberately misrepresented by police to justify a pre-planned removal. She also said her mother was denied access to lawyers, given no notice, and is now struggling alone in Pakistan, with no relatives, no income, and deteriorating health, as provided by the report.

The Division Bench’s Stay: A reversal of urgency and rights

On July 3, without examining these contradictions or addressing the humanitarian stakes of the matter, the Division Bench granted an interim stay on the repatriation order, delaying relief without a finding of fault.

The stay has effectively nullified the urgency recognised by the single-judge bench. No timeline for repatriation. No safeguard for Rashid in Pakistan. Just indefinite suspension, as the case winds its way through another round of legal arguments.

This raises pressing constitutional and ethical concerns:

• Can the state correct an illegal act (a forcible deportation without process) by citing procedural technicalities in retrospect?
• Should courts allow such technicalities to override basic rights and urgent judicial directions rooted in justice and dignity?
• Does the judicial system recognise the harm caused by delay itself, especially when the person harmed is elderly, sick, and stateless in practice?

The appeal has been admitted and will now be heard on merits. Until then, Rakshanda Rashid remains stranded in Pakistan, in legal limbo, without family or resources. The SOS call issued by the Court has been muted by procedure, and a woman who never should have been deported in the first place is forced to wait for her humanity to be re-recognised.

What the High Court gave with one hand, compassion, clarity, and courage, the system has now taken away, at least for the moment. And the message it sends is deeply worrying: that even in clear cases of wrongful state action, relief can be stayed, and rights can be delayed, if not denied.

Related:

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

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

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

Gauhati HC closes habeas corpus petition after release of bail-compliant detainee, declines prayer for compensation

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

How the Rajubala case in the Supreme Court, its genesis and context has now become the ground for ‘state expulsion”

The post Justice Deferred: J&K High Court stays repatriation of 63-year-old woman deported after Pahalgam attack, following MHA appeal appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Court, presided over by Justice Rahul Bharti, observed that Rashid’s deportation appeared arbitrary and in violation of her legal status as a Long-Term Visa (LTV) holder who had resided in India for nearly four decades. The matter came before the Court through a writ petition filed by her daughter, Falak Zahoor.

The petitioner’s husband, Sheikh Zahoor Ahmed, informed the Court that Rakshanda had no family or support in Pakistan and was suffering from multiple serious ailments. Her deportation, he submitted, had left her vulnerable, abandoned, and at grave risk.

The Court took serious note of these submissions, underscoring that in matters where human life and dignity are imperilled, the judiciary is obligated to act as a constitutional protector—even in the absence of a full adjudication on the merits.

“Human rights are the most sacrosanct component of a human life and, therefore, there are occasions when a constitutional court is supposed to come up with SOS like indulgence notwithstanding the merits and demerits of a case which can be adjudicated only upon in due course of time and therefore, this Court is coming up with a direction to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India to bring back the petitioner from her deportation.” (Para 3)

Justice Bharti noted that at the time of her deportation, Rashid was a documented LTV holder—a status that ought to have protected her from arbitrary removal. Yet, without any formal deportation order or due process, she was allegedly “forced out” of the country as part of a broader post-carnage operation by government authorities.

“This Court is bearing in mind background that the reference that the petitioner was having LTV status at relevant point of time which per-se may not have warranted her deportation but without examining her case in better perspective and coming up with a proper order with respect to her deportation from the authorities concerned, still she came to be forced out.” (Para 4)

Referring to the “exceptional nature of facts and circumstances,” the Court issued extraordinary directions to the Ministry of Home Affairs:

“Given the exceptional nature of facts and circumstances of the case whereby the petitioner-Rakshanda Rashid wife of Sheikh Zahoor Ahmed has been purportedly deported to Pakistan in the recent drive undertaken by the Government of India post Pahalgam carnage, this Court is constrained to direct the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India to retrieve the petitioner back to J&K, India so as to facilitate the reunion of the petitioner with her husband-Sheikh Zahoor Ahmed in Jammu.” (Para 5)

The Ministry has been given ten days from the date of the order (June 6, 2025) to ensure compliance. The matter is now listed for July 1, 2025, when a compliance report is to be submitted before the Court.

The order, marked by urgency and empathy, sets a significant precedent in cases involving the deportation of foreign nationals long-residing in India under legal permits. It highlights the responsibility of the state to uphold due process, especially when fundamental rights and humanitarian considerations intersect.

The complete order may be read below.

A judicial pushback amid rising arbitrary deportations

This order comes at a crucial moment. Across the country, particularly in the state of Assam, there has been a surge in the deportation of Bengali-speaking individuals, most of whom are Muslims, many of them declared “foreigners” by opaque and controversial Foreigners Tribunals. Numerous cases have been documented where individuals have been picked up and sent across the Bangladesh border without any written deportation order, legal representation, or family notification.

In several instances, courts and commissions have been bypassed altogether. Women, children, and elderly persons have been subjected to these clandestine removals, often despite having ongoing legal cases, bail orders, or valid documents. The pattern has alarmed civil liberties groups, who describe it as a systemic erosion of constitutional guarantees like due process, dignity, and the right to be heard.

Against this grim national backdrop, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court’s order stands out for upholding the principle that even those classified as “foreigners” or “non-citizens” are entitled to basic constitutional protections. The judgment affirms that deportation—when carried out without transparency, legal backing, or humanitarian consideration—amounts to a violation of both law and conscience.

This order sends a strong message: that constitutional protections do not end at the margins of nationality, and that humanitarian justice must prevail where executive action falters.

Related:

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

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

Gauhati HC closes habeas corpus petition after release of bail-compliant detainee, declines prayer for compensation

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

How the Rajubala case in the Supreme Court, its genesis and context has now become the ground for ‘state expulsion”

The post J&K High court orders repatriation of 63-year-old woman deported to Pakistan without due process appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Allegations made against Dar:

It is essential to note that Dar has been under detention since January 16, 2022 under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA). While detaining Dar, the detaining authorities had accused him of tweeting and making such controversial statements that promoted enmity and were prejudicial to maintenance of public order and security of the State. Dar used to write under the name Sajad Gul.

The detaining authorities also submitted that even as Dar had been previously detained in a number of criminal cases, the same has not deterred him from committing “anti-national activities”. As per the judgment, it was also averred by the authorities that the aforesaid facts and circumstances deemed it necessary for them to invoke the provisions of the PSA and detain Dar from acting in any manner which is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and the security of the State.

A total of three FIRs had been registered against Dar. In the first FIR, Dar had been accused of creating obstacles in the encroachment drive of the Revenue Department in his native village in December 2021. Whereas, in the second FIR, he was accused to have tweeted against the Union of India in October 2021 from his Twitter account through which he alleged spread false and fake narrative of a terrorist operation which was carried out in Gund Jahangeer and in which one local terrorist, namely, Imtiyaz Ahmad Dar, was eliminated and, thus, tried to agitate people against the security forces. In the third FIR, Dar was alleged to have uploaded a video on social media highlighting the anti-national slogans raised by the people in January 2022 in the house of a most wanted terrorist, namely, Saleem Parray, eliminated in an encounter at Shalimar, Srinagar. (Para 8)

Observations by the High Court:

The division bench comprising Chief Justice N. Kotiswar Singh and Justice MA Chowdhary made the following observations after hearing the submissions made by both the parties:

Supply of relevant material to the detenu under Article 22(5): On the outset, the court observed that the Dar had not been provided with the relevant documents required under law to make an adequate representation against his detention.

In Para 12 of the judgment, the HC noted that “In the present case, the detenu has not been provided all the relevant material like dossier, FIRs, statements of witnesses and other allied documents, including the alleged posts on his social media accounts, which were relevant for making a proper representation against his detention, not only to the detaining authority but also to the Government, besides seeking audience before the Advisory Board constituted under the J&K Public Safety Act.”

The court also highlighted that the whole of the record of the three FIRs registered against the detenu and relied upon by the detaining authority to draw his satisfaction with regard to ordering preventive detention of the detenu has not been furnished/ supplied to the detenu. This resulted in the violation of the constitutional rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

“In absence of providing of the whole of the documentary record, the detenu cannot be said to be able to make an effective and meaningful representation against his detention which was his statutory as well as constitutional right.” (Para 17)

It also noted that detaining authority had omitted to mention that Dar was granted bail in one of the cases.

Grounds of detention: In its judgement, the court noted that there was no specific allegations made against Dar to show that his activities could be attributed to be prejudicial to the security of the State. Observing this, the Court found the allegations to be vague and general and without any specific instance to show that Dar had been working against national interests.

“Such a tendency on the part of the detaining authority to detain the critics of the policies or commissions/ omissions of the Government machinery, as in the case of the present detenu – a professional media person, in our considered opinion, is an abuse of the preventive law,” the Court observed in the judgment in Para 14.

The Court further noted that that the grounds of detention had nowhere mentioned that Dar had indulged in uploading any false story or that his reporting was not based on true facts. It further noted that the detaining authority, itself, has admitted that the detenu, having done Masters in Journalism, was working as a Journalist and it was his professional/ occupational duty to report the happenings in his area, even including the operations of the security forces. There is no specific allegation against the detenu as to how his activities could be attributed to be prejudicial to the security of the State, the bench had said.

“The grounds of detention nowhere suggest/ reveal that the detenu had, at any point of time, filed/ uploaded any false story/ reporting based not on true facts. It is nowhere stated as to how the detenu had disrupted the public order creating any alleged enmity, inasmuch as, there is no specific instance in any of the allegations levelled against him to show that he had been working against the national interests, so as to be prejudicial to the security of the State,” the Court further observed in the judgment in Para 14.

Being a critic of government no ground to detain a person: Following the aforementioned observation, the bench of the High Court declared unequivocally that an individual cannot be imprisoned solely for the reason that he criticizes the government. The detaining authorities said that the detenu had been critical of the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir government’s policies and that his tweets had incited protests against the government. The bench declared that this could not be a reason to hold someone.

“This cannot be said to be a ground to be relied upon that a true and factual media report can provoke people against the working of the Government, that too without any specific instance as to how his tweets had caused any problem, much less public order problem with the Government. In the grounds of detention, it has also been referred that the uploading of the news items by the detenu, as a Journalist, had created enmity and acrimony against Government machinery, however, there is no specific instance as to which of the posts/ write ups are there as being so and on what date,” the bench observed in Para 15 of the judgment.

Judgement of the High Court:

The High Court observed that the grounds of detention are vague and not sustainable and that the detaining authority did not apply its mind to draw subjective satisfaction. “The detention order based on such vague grounds is not sustainable, for the reason that the detaining authority, before passing the order, has not applied its mind to draw subjective satisfaction to order prevention detention of the detenu by curtailing his liberty which is a valuable and cherishable right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

With this, the division bench of the High Court set aside the earlier order passed by a single bench of the High Court, in December 2022, which had refused to interfere with the detention order passed by the District Magistrate. The High Court then quashed the said detention order and directed the release of the detenu from preventive custody.

The complete order can be read here:

Related:

Jammu & Kashmir HC: Fahad Shah granted bail after spending 21 months in jail

14 months on, Kashmiri journalist, Fahad Shah’s detention under PSA quashed

Kashmiri journalist Aakash Hassan ‘stopped’ from travelling abroad

Kashmir: Journalist Aasif Sultan jailed under PSA, after getting bail 

Jammu and Kashmir: Press Council of India to investigate intimidation of journalists 

The post Jammu & Kashmir HC: Being a critic of government no ground to detain a person, detaining authorities apply no mind appeared first on SabrangIndia.