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 the hearings of the petition filed by Bakkar Ali regarding the recent allegedly secret detention of his father Samsul Ali, the counsel for Union of India today –June 10– told Gauhati High Court the father was formally handed over by Assam Police to the Border Security Force (BSF) Sector Headquarters at Panbari on May 26, 2025. The disclosure came nearly two weeks after Samsul Ali was allegedly picked up from his residence in Chirang district during a late-night operation on May 25, without any arrest memo, warrant, or court production — prompting his family to move the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The last hearing in the matter was yesterday, June 9, and a report on the last hearing may be read here.

In the most recent order passed today by the bench of Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and N. Unni Krishnan Nair, the Court directed that, if Samsul Ali has not yet been deported, the head of the BSF Sector Headquarters shall permit the petitioner and one family member to visit him, and facilitate the execution of a vakalatnama to allow continued legal representation. In the event that deportation has already taken place, the authorities have been instructed to disclose the exact location from which the deportation occurred.

The case — in which legal aid is being provided by Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) — is part of a growing number of petitions being filed in the Gauhati High Court, where families allege that Bengali-speaking Muslims previously released on bail after FT declarations are being secretly re-detained and, in some cases, deported without judicial oversight. These cases share a recurring pattern: midnight pickups, non-disclosure of custody, denial of access to legal remedies, and procedural opacity in handovers to BSF or other agencies.

Today’s order builds on yesterday’s hearing in the matter, which took place on June 9, in which the High Court had criticised the State’s failure to provide any documentation about the transfer to BSF. While it has declined, for now, to direct the Union of India to file a formal affidavit, the Court has kept the petition alive — leaving open the door for further relief if deportation is confirmed or if any adverse development occurs. The matter is next listed for June 20, 2025. (Details of the earlier proceeding may be read here.)

Meanwhile, through independent social media sources, CJP has found Samsul Ali in a distraught condition may be in No Man’s land between the two countries. See the memorandums submitted to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) on the question here and here.

From Secrecy to Disclosure: The three-stage legal timeline of the case

This case has seen incremental disclosures over successive hearings:

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

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

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

Petition remains pending, keeps door open for further relief

During today’s hearing, Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta, appearing for the petitioner, requested that the Union of India be directed to file an affidavit detailing whether Samsul Ali has been deported and, if so, on what legal and factual basis. The Court, however, declined to issue such a direction at this stage, noting that a large number of similar cases are now being filed, and that such a step would not be feasible in every matter.

That said, the petition has not been dismissed. The Court clarified that if the petitioner faces any adverse consequence — such as confirmed deportation — the said may be informed to the Court immediately. It also indicated that a report would be called for if deportation has indeed taken place, keeping the petition procedurally alive and legally relevant.

The matter is now listed for further hearing on June 20, 2025.

Background: Bail compliance, FT order, and the alleged procedural bypass

Samsul Ali was declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal, Chirang in 2016. He spent more than three years in detention before being released in February 2020 under the bail regime outlined by the Supreme Court in SCLSC v. Union of India (2019). Since his release, he had been reporting weekly to the Police Station, with his last appearance logged on May 21, 2025 — just four days before his pickup.

His family maintains that he was detained without documentation, never produced before a magistrate, and that police allegedly refused to accept an FIR, forcing them to send complaints by registered post. When no official information was forthcoming, the family had filed the said habeas corpus petition — which has since led to successive disclosures culminating in today’s order.

The FT order under which he was declared a foreigner is not based on any proof of border crossing or foreign documentation, and does not establish nationality in any other country. The family alleges that Samsul Ali has been rendered stateless, and that deportation without formal diplomatic clearance and nationality verification would be illegal.

Visitation to BSF: A notable legal step

While courts have regularly granted visitation rights to families of detainees held in civil detention centres, today’s order granting visitation rights to a person in BSF custody at a Sector Headquarters is notable. It affirms that even in border security operations, access to family and legal counsel cannot be arbitrarily denied, especially when the legal status of the person’s custody or deportation is under judicial review.

It also sets a precedent for ensuring access and due process even in cases where the handover to BSF is claimed, but documentation is missing or incomplete — a frequent concern raised in recent petitions alleging pushbacks across the Indo-Bangladesh border.

The petition will be taken up again on June 20, by which time it may become clear whether:

• Samsul Ali remains within the jurisdiction of Indian authorities;
• He has been deported, and if so, under what procedures;
• His family has been permitted to meet him and secure his legal signature.

The case remains a significant test of procedural safeguards, executive accountability, and the right to challenge arbitrary detention and removal, particularly in Assam’s fraught citizenship regime.

The order may be read below.

Related:

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

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

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

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

The post Union Govt admits handover of Samsul Ali to BSF, Gauhati High Court grants family visitation rights if not yet deported appeared first on SabrangIndia.

These events, including the rather brazen assertion by Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma of a “push-back” policy for undocumented immigrants from Bangladesh and Myanmar (including Rohingyas), have brought the issue of deportation and refugee rights into sharp focus. A report by the Indian Express stated that approximately 2,000 individuals have been forcibly returned under “Operation Sindhoor.” People from states like Gujarat, Rajasthan and Maharashtra have been reportedly detained and taken to Bangladesh border.

A top officer of the Bangladesh Army has termed the forcible expulsion or so called “push-back” policy unacceptable. A woman—Shona Bhanu— was pushed into Bangladesh at gun point. She has lived in Assam all her life.

As in all matters related to citizenship, Assam and its people, especially the marginalised, have faced the brunt. Citizens for Justice and Peace (cjp.org,in)  with its vibrant on ground team in the state, has been closely involved in not just monitoring and documenting this humanitarian tragedy but also intervened with para legal aid, counselling and actual legal interventions. See here and here. Comprehensive memorandums to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) may be read here and here.

Much of the recent action (s) of the authorities, in states ruled, interestingly by the far right Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), have been experienced as executive overreach, with no public disclosures on procedures and documents to legally and constitutionally justify the process. Sudden demolitions of entire bastis, the forcible detention of families, backed by over-hyped and exaggerated statements on purging the country of illegal immigrants have even put the judiciary on the defensive. That these actions have been launched in a coordinated manner after the Pahalgam terror attack (April 22) and the military face-off between India-Pakistan (May 7-10, 2025), squarely plays into public sentiment that remains silent or “allows” such unlawful actions.

Given that India remains a constitutional republic, bound to a process of law, procedure and even international obligations, it is crucial to ask, what is the law and procedure, on ‘deportation’ and how important it is that this be rendered in the public consciousness and meticulously followed?

In this extensive legal resource (in two parts) CJP’s legal team examines this sticklish question.

A common, yet simplistic, view is that individuals who are not Indian citizens and have entered India illegally should be sent back. This perspective often overlooks the complex legal and humanitarian dimensions involved. This document aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the legal framework governing deportation in India. It will explore:

1. The rights of refugees and illegal migrants under the Indian Constitution.
2. How various court judgments have upheld these fundamental rights, including the right to due process, thereby shaping the law of the land?

This analysis will primarily focus on the legal aspects, with a subsequent part that deals with the broader societal and humanitarian considerations for treating refugees with not just greater compassion but adherence to constitutional jurisprudence and international obligations.

1. Legal Regime—Immigration and deportation in India

The management of immigration and the deportation of foreign nationals is a complex and often contentious domain within Indian law and policy. The “push-back” strategy, characterised by the forcible return of individuals without adherence to established legal procedures, starkly contrasts with the human rights guarantees enshrined in the Indian Constitution and affirmed by its judiciary. The recent enactment of The Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 (hereinafter “the 2025 Act”), which consolidates and replaces previous legislation, further shapes this landscape, necessitating a thorough examination of its provisions and implications.

2.1.          The legislative framework (Foreigners Act, 1946—Pre-2025 Act)

Prior to the 2025 Act, the deportation process in India was primarily governed by the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964.

• Definition of a “Foreigner”: Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, defined a “foreigner” as a person who is not a citizen of India.
• Foreigners Tribunals: Established under the 1964 Order, these tribunals were empowered to determine if an individual was a foreigner.
• Expulsion: Once declared a foreigner, an individual was liable for expulsion from Indian territory under Section 3(2)(c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
• Saving Provision: The Foreigners Act, 1946 was repealed by the 2025 Act, but a saving provision ensured that rules made under the 1946 Act continue to be valid.

2.2.          Role of the Citizenship Act, 1955, and Special Provisions (Assam-Specific)

The Citizenship Act, 1955, contains crucial provisions, particularly relevant in the context of Assam:

• Section 6A (Assam Accord): This section provides special provisions for persons of Indian origin who entered Assam between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971. If declared foreigners, they may still be permitted to register for citizenship after a 10-year waiting period from the date of detection. During this period, they cannot vote but enjoy other citizenship rights. Entrants post-March 25, 1971, if found to be foreigners, are liable for expulsion.
• Section 9 (Burden of Proof): This section places the burden of proving Indian citizenship on the individual when questioned by authorities, rather than the state having to prove they are not a citizen.
• Referral to Tribunals (Assam): For individuals in Assam or those covered under special notifications, cases with inadequate documentation or unclear citizenship are referred to Foreigners Tribunals. This is mandated by the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003, and Paragraph 2 of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964.

2.3.       The Passports Act, 1967

The Passports Act, 1967, while not directly providing for deportation, plays a significant role in the identification and apprehension of individuals liable for deportation:

• Powers of Passport Authorities (Sections 6 & 10): Authorities can refuse, impound, or revoke passports if the applicant is not an Indian citizen, or if issuance is contrary to public interest, national security, or foreign relations.
• Penalties (Section 12): Prescribes penalties for obtaining or using passports through false information or by foreigners masquerading as Indian citizens.
• Arrest Powers (Sections 13 & 14): Law enforcement can arrest individuals with fraudulent passports or without valid documentation, often a preliminary step towards deportation.
• Complementary Legislation: The Passports Act, 1967, operates alongside the Foreigners Act, 1946 (now repealed), and the Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939(also repealed by the 2025 Act).

Foreigners staying illegally in India risk violating provisions of both the (now-repealed) Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Passports Act, 1967, potentially leading to imprisonment of up to 5 years. The question of what happens after such a foreigner is released from jail often involves arbitrary administrative discretion.

2.4.         Procedure for deportation

Deportation in India, though grounded in statutory powers, was largely operationalised through internal administrative mechanisms and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) by state authorities (See here, here and here) following directions from the Centre.

Typical deportation process:

• Identification/Completion of Sentence: A foreign national is declared a foreigner or completes a prison term for violating applicable laws.
• Notification: Jail authorities notify relevant police officials (e.g., Superintendent of Police) about the impending release.
• Custody and Order:
  • If the government decides on deportation, a formal order is issued.
  • Upon release, the individual is taken into police custody and served with the deportation order.
• Physical Removal: Arrangements are made for their removal from the country, often under police escort. The serving officer reports the execution of the order back to the government.
• Consular notification (Vienna Convention):
  • As per Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Indian authorities must inform the consular representatives of the foreign national’s country about their arrest or detention.
  • Indian practice (MEA Office Memorandum No. T.4415/1/91 (CPO/CIR/9)) requires:
    • Asking the arrested foreign national if they wish their consulate to be informed.
    • Immediately notifying the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).
    • Providing detailed particulars (name, nationality, passport details, offence, arrest details, location) to Joint Secretaries at MEA and MHA, and state authorities.
    • Deportation for minor violations: In cases of brief overstays or delayed registration, prosecution might be withdrawn with court approval, and the individual directly deported under delegated powers of Section 3(2)(c) of the (now-repealed) Foreigners Act. A record is submitted to the MEA.

2.5.          The Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025: A New Consolidated Regime

The Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, received Presidential assent. It aims to consolidate and modernise India’s immigration laws by repealing four key statutes:

1. The Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920
2. The Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939
3. The Foreigners Act, 1946
4. The Immigration (Carriers’ Liability) Act, 2000

2.5.1.     Key Provisions of the 2025 Act

• Definition of “Foreigner” (Section 2(f)): A person who is not a citizen of India (consistent with the 1946 Act).
• Entry, Exit, and Registration:
  • Section 3: Mandates valid passports/travel documents for all entering/exiting India. Foreigners additionally require a valid visa, unless exempted.
  • Section 6: Requires foreigners to register with a designated Registration Officer upon arrival, subject to prescribed conditions.
  • Section 5: Provides for notification of designated immigration posts and establishes a Bureau of Immigration.
• Powers of Immigration Authorities:
  • Section 3: Immigration Officers can examine travel documents/visas and deny entry on grounds specified by the Central Government (national security, sovereignty, public order, public health, foreign relations).
  • Section 26: Police officers (not below Head Constable rank) can arrest without a warrant individuals suspected of contravening entry requirements or other Act provisions.

• Powers of the Central Government:
  • Section 7: Empowers the Central Government to issue orders/instructions to prohibit, regulate, or restrict entry, departure, or continued presence of any foreigner or class of foreigners. This can include directives on residence, movement restrictions, proof of identity, and reporting presence.

• Tracking and Monitoring:
  • Sections 10, 12, and 17: Impose reporting obligations on carriers, accommodation providers (hotels, etc.), educational institutions, and medical institutions treating foreign patients to furnish prescribed information to registration authorities.

• Penalties:
  • Section 18: Carriers liable for fines up to ₹50,000 for contravening Section 17. If a carrier brings an illegal foreigner, the fine can be ₹2-5 lakhs.
  • Section 21: Entering India without a valid passport/visa can attract imprisonment up to five years and a fine up to ₹500,000.
  • Section 22: Using forged documents can lead to imprisonment for two to seven years and fines from ₹100,000 to ₹1,000,000.
  • Section 23: Overstaying, violating visa conditions, or trespassing in restricted areas can result in imprisonment up to three years and a fine up to ₹300,000.

• Mechanisms for Identification, Detention, and Deportation:
  • Section 29: Authorizes the Central Government to order the removal of any foreigner from India if they have contravened the Act/orders or if there is an “adverse security report” against them. “Adverse security report” is not defined in the Act.
  • Government officers are granted reasonable powers to enforce removal.
  • Foreigners may be required to bear the cost of their removal and maintenance pending removal.
  • The Act does not detail pre-deportation detention facilities or conditions, suggesting these could be in rules framed under the Act meaning that they are left to executive discretion.
  • The term “illegal immigrant” is not explicitly defined, though actions constituting illegal entry/stay are penalised.

(Note: “illegal migrant” is defined in Section 2(1)(b) of The Citizenship Act, 1955 as a person entering the Country without valid documents or overstaying permitted time in country despite having entered with valid documents).

2.5.2.     Concerns Regarding the 2025 Act

While presented as a modernising step, the 2025 Act appears to consolidate and potentially amplify executive dominance:

• Vague grounds for removal (Section 29): The term “adverse security report” is undefined, allowing for potentially unfettered discretion without a clear, independent review mechanism within the Act.
• Absence of adequate appellate mechanism: No statutory appellate mechanism within the Act to challenge deportation orders, forcing individuals to approach constitutional courts.
• Silence on refugees/asylum seekers: The Act lacks explicit classifications or special provisions for refugees and asylum seekers.
• Expansive power of removal and use of force:
  • Section 29: Grants broad power for removal.
  • Section 27 (Use of Force):

• Subsection (1): Allows any authority to take steps and use force “as may, in its opinion, be reasonably necessary” for compliance or effective exercise of power.
• Subsection (2): Extends similar powers to police (Head Constable and above) to use force “as may, in his opinion, be reasonably necessary.” The subjective nature of “reasonably necessary” provides wide latitude.
• Subsection (3): Grants a “right of access to any land or other property whatsoever,” potentially facilitating removals.
• These provisions could legitimize forcible “push-back” operations with limited procedural review.

• Delegation and immunity:
  • Section 28 (Delegation of Powers): Allows the Central Government to delegate its powers widely (to subordinate officers/authorities, State Governments, or their subordinates). This could lead to decentralized and less scrutinized implementation of removal directives, including “push-backs.”
  • Section 32 (Protection of action taken in good faith): Protects individuals from legal proceedings for actions “done, or intended to be done in good faith” under the Act. In the context of vague terms and broad force powers, this may shield authorities in “push-back” operations.

• Rule-making power and continuity of previous regime:
  • Section 30 (Power to make rules): Grants extensive rule-making power to the Central Government. Significant aspects of the deportation process (detention, removal specifics, and safeguards) will be determined by executive rule-making rather than direct legislative scrutiny.

Overall Concern: The 2025 Act solidifies executive dominance. Vague removal grounds, sanctioned use of force based on officer opinion, wide delegation, and protective clauses create a framework where policies like “push-back” can be implemented with a veneer of legality. The Act’s silence on specific protections for refugees means these broad powers can apply to vulnerable individuals without distinction, potentially lacking robust procedural safeguards and independent oversight.

2.6.          The “Push-Back” Policy: Assam’s approach to undocumented citizens/immigration

Against this new legal backdrop, the Assam Chief Minister has publicly announced the state’s adoption of a “push-back” policy for undocumented immigrants, primarily targeting individuals from Bangladesh and Myanmar (including Rohingyas). This policy is framed as an expedient alternative to established legal deportation procedures, citing national security.

• Reported Incidents: Forcible return of Bengali-speaking Muslims and Rohingyas, sometimes from detention centres, with individuals allegedly stranded at the “zero line” if refused entry by neighbouring countries.

• Alignment with MHA Directives: This state-level policy appears to resonate with Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) directives aimed at expediting deportation. The MHA has instructed states to:

• Verify credentials of suspected illegal immigrants within a 30-day deadline, failing which deportation is to proceed.
• Establish special district-level task forces for detection, identification, and deportation.
• Risks of MHA’s 30-Day Deadline: High risk of wrongful deportations, as nationality verification is often complex and cannot realistically be completed in such a short timeframe, especially for vulnerable individuals. This could lead to violations of the principle of non-refoulement if asylum seekers are erroneously deported.

• Legal Ambiguity: The “push-back” policy operates in a legally ambiguous, if not outright unlawful, space. It flouts the procedural protections required by the Constitution and affirmed by the Courts. What are these protections?

3.       The Judicial Bulwark – Constitutional Rights and Deportation Jurisprudence

While legislation grants the state powers to regulate foreigners, the Indian judiciary has consistently intervened to ensure these powers are exercised in conformity with constitutional principles.

3.1.          Constitutional Protections for Non-Citizens

The Constitution of India extends certain fundamental rights to all persons within its territory, not just citizens.

• Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty): “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
  • The Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India established that “life” means the right to live with human dignity, and “personal liberty” has been broadly interpreted.
  • Critically, the “procedure established by law” must be just, fair, and reasonable. This is fundamental to any deportation process.

• Article 14 (Equality before the Law): “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”
  • This acts as a bulwark against arbitrary state action. Any differential treatment for deportation must be based on an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the objective.

Policies like “push-backs,” which bypass due process, are prima facie incompatible with Article 21. If such policies disproportionately target specific ethnic or national groups without a non-discriminatory legal basis, they could also be challenged under Article 14.

3.2.          Judgements on Deportation and Rights of Foreigners

A nuanced judicial landscape has emerged regarding the treatment of foreign nationals.

3.2.1.     Right to Life and Liberty (Article 21)

The Supreme Court in Louis De Raedt & Ors vs Union Of India And Ors, 1991 (3) SCC 554 firmly stated that a foreigner’s fundamental right is confined to Article 21 for life and liberty. It “does not include the right to reside and settle in this country, as mentioned in Article 19(1) (e), which is applicable only to the citizens of this country.”

3.2.2.     State’s Power to Expel

The Supreme Court, in Louis De Raedt, referencing an earlier Constitution Bench decision, held that “the power of the Government in India to expel foreigners is absolute and unlimited and there is no provision in the Constitution fettering this discretion.” This power is typically exercised under the Foreigners Act, 1946 (now the 2025 Act).

3.2.3.     Principle of Non-Refoulement

This international law principle prohibits a state from returning a refugee to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened.

Although India is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, courts have drawn inspiration from international instruments like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (to which India is a party) to interpret domestic fundamental rights.

In Ktaer Abbas Habib Al Qutaifi And Anr. vs Union Of India  (Gujarat High Court),  (1998) SCC OnLine Guj 304, concerning Iraqi refugees, the Court declared that the principle of non-refoulement “is encompassed in Article 21 of the Constitution, so long as the presence of refugee is not prejudicial to the law and order and security of India.” It noted India’s UN membership and Article 51(c) of the Constitution (fostering respect for international law). The Court directed authorities to release the detained foreigners and decide on their handover to the UNHCR rather than deporting them to Iraq.

In Nandita Haksar v State of Manipur (Manipur High Court), (2021) SCC OnLine Mani 176,
dealing with Myanmarese asylum seekers, the Court held that Article 21 “would indubitably encompass the right of non-refoulement, albeit subject to the condition that the presence of such asylum seeker or refugee is not prejudicial or adverse to the security of this country.” It distinguished ‘migrants’ from ‘asylum seekers’ who fled imminent threats and directed facilitation of their travel to the UNHCR in New Delhi.

In a recent case being heard by the Bombay High Court, a vacation bench of justices Neela Gokhale and Firdosh P Pooniwalla ordered the Mumbai police to release immediate an 18-year old daughter of a Bangladeshi national from detention. Her father, reportedly a Bangladeshi national was initially detained by the Mankhurd police in Mumbai ‘for an inquiry regarding his citizenship and was later deported to the neighbouring country.The court was hearing a petition filed by the 18-year-old girl and her two younger siblings aged 16 and 8 years, who contended that they were born in India and had all requisite documents to prove their Indian citizenship. According to their petition, their father, Dadamiya Khan, had been residing in India for over 37 years. He had married an Indian woman named Mariyam Khan and was working as a cab driver. While all three children were detained by Mankhurd police following a special drive to identify foreign nationals staying illegally in India, the two younger siblings were handed over to their mother after they filed the Habeas Corpus petition.

3.2.4.     Supreme Court on Rohingya Deportation

In Mohammad Salimullah vs Union Of India, (2021) 19 SCC 191, the Supreme Court, while acknowledging Articles 14 and 21 are available to non-citizens, denied interim relief against deportation for Rohingya refugees. It cited “threat to internal security of the country” and “agents and touts providing a safe passage into India for illegal immigrants.” However, even in this context, the Court stipulated that deportation must follow the “procedure prescribed for such deportation.”

3.2.5.     Natural Justice and Right to be Heard

Louis De Raedt: The Supreme Court noted that while there’s no hard and fast rule, an opportunity to present one’s case is relevant.

In State Of Arunachal Pradesh vs Khudiram Chakma, 1994 (1) SCC (SUPP) 615, involving the proposed shifting of Chakmas, multiple notices and representations over time were deemed sufficient opportunity for a hearing. Interestingly, despite upholding state power, the Court allowed the Chief Minister to afford a post-decisional hearing on humanitarian grounds.

3.2.6.     State’s Duty to Protect

In National Human Rights Commission vs State Of Arunachal Pradesh & Anr, (1996) 1 SCC 742, the Supreme Court directed the state government to protect the life and liberty of Chakma refugees facing threats and ‘quit notices’ from organised groups. This affirmed the state’s constitutional and statutory obligation to safeguard all human beings, citizens or otherwise.

3.2.7.     Judicial Essence

While the Indian judiciary acknowledges the executive’s broad power to regulate foreigners and deport illegal entrants, it has consistently emphasized that any such deportation must follow the prescribed procedure, aligning with the principles of natural justice and constitutional safeguards under Article 21.

4.       Conclusion

In the case of Maja Daruwala v. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court passed an order on January 30, 2025, and posed some questions to respondents (Centre and West Bengal) regarding what their stance was on deportation of illegal migrants. The Court expressed a confusion and said as follows:

“The pivotal issue that falls for our consideration is that if an illegal immigrant from Bangladesh after being apprehended and proceeded under Section 14A(b) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 is convicted and sentenced to undergo a particular term of imprisonment then after he completes his term of sentence should be immediately repatriated/deported to his own country or should he be kept for an indefinite period in the Correctional Homes in India.

The only confusion in our mind is that once an illegal immigrant is put to trial and is held guilty then what is the requirement for further verification of his nationality at the end of the Ministry of External Affairs.”

On May 16, 2025, the two-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan transferred the issues in this case to be heard along with another case— Jaffar Ullah & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors—dealt by a larger bench.

The latest order—in Jaffar Ullah— was the Supreme Court refusing to interfere in deportation until it finally hears the case which it is set to hear on July 31, 2025. This was done after the Union drew the Court’s attention to the Mohammad Salimullah order which mandated that government follow the procedure before deportation.

One clear conclusion from the above happening is that a specific well thought out law on deportation does not exist. All we have are some memorandums and executive decided processes. The Supreme Court’s expression of confusion is a testament to that.

This means that the current policy being followed, involving pushback, does not take into account things like lack of documentation etc. especially in poor Bengali speaking communities. And in the absence of a set law, the pushbacks reported are happening in a legally dubious manner putting vulnerable people including those that fled persecution at risk.

In essence, while the legislative framework, particularly the new 2025 Act, appears to strengthen the executive’s hand in managing immigration and effecting deportations, this power is not unfettered. It is limited by constitutional safeguards and a body of judicial precedent that insists on procedural fairness, non-arbitrariness, and respect for human dignity. The ongoing challenge lies in ensuring that administrative practices and the implementation of laws like The Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, rigorously adhere to these judicially reinforced standards.

Whether the Supreme Court will herald a new era in human rights law by mandating better procedures for deportation or not is a question that will be answered after July 31. The second part of this explainer will explore the broader humanitarian and societal arguments for why refugees should be treated with greater compassion and why upholding such principles is vital for India as a civilization.

(The author is part of the legal research team of the organisation)

Related:

From Detention to Deportation: The mass deportations and detention crisis at Assam’s Matia centre

Restoring Citizenship, Rebuilding Lives: CJP continues its journey in Assam

Declared Foreigner, buried Indian: The tragic death of Abdul Matleb in Assam’s detention camp

A jumla or a concrete step? Assam CM’s announcement on Koch Rajbongshi cases raises more questions than answers

SC: Only 10 deported, 33 of 63 contest foreigner status from the Matia Transit Camp, Assam

The post Does India have a lawfully established procedure on ‘deportation’, or are actions governed by Executive secrecy and overreach? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It has been ten days of trauma and sleepless nights for thousands of working class citizens in the north eastern state of Assam. When the Assam Border Police, backed by no legal authority, no warrants, simply swept down on all 33 districts and selectively picked up women, women with babes in arms, men and illegally detained them before many of them were allegedly pushed across the international border into Bangladesh. CJP’s first exclusive report may be read here.

A week later, yesterday, Sunday June 1, some respite was felt, even as anger and trauma reigned. News and accounts of several such illegally detained citizens being “dumped back” in different locales in Assam, with no explanation trickled in. There is of course no talk, not a murmur even of reparation or compensation, for what they had been put through.

CJP’s team members met with and interviewed six such women. Whom fate had rescued. Dozens of those detained still remain untraceable, an approximate figure of those who were initially untraceable, as per unconfirmed reports is 145.

Hajera Khatun:

Over 60 years old, Hajera Khatun, is the daughter of Kurpan Ali, and wife of Sangser Ali from village Bhalluki under Barpeta road police Station of Barpeta District. This Bengali-speaking Muslim women who is a diabetic patient was allegedly forcefully and illegally detained by the Assam Border Police on May 25. She was taken to an entirely unknown place.

Hajera Khatun was not unfamiliar with being detained. She was once detained in one of Assam’s dreaded detention camps –women are kept at Kokhrajhar—and was released on temporary bail in 2021. Her case is pending in the Gauhati High Court and it is of significance that under directives of the Gauhati HC she could not have been deported. Yet she was. CJP has accessed a copy of her documents.

Like dozens of others from different parts of Assam, this poor Indian woman was taken away by the police on May 25. She was not found since. Her family members searched desperately for her for over a week, seeking assistance from CJP’s legal and paralegal team too. However she could not be traced. Finally, when she reached home on May 30 (Friday), CJP volunteers including CJP’s state-in-charge, Nanda Ghosh and advocate Abhijeet Choudhary met and interviewed her.

When the team first reached her home she was found to be ill due to high blood pressure and had been taken for medical assistance and treatment by her family members. After about an hour, Hajera share her pain, “The police simply came and told me –without giving reasons–to go to the office of the Superintendent of Police (SP) on May 25. I got terrified, and asked, ‘Why would I go to the SP office?”

She continued, “They took me away from here saying, ‘How many more days will you have to appear like this? It’s hard on you, and it’s hard on us too.’” They said they’d make some arrangement today so that you wouldn’t have to come (to report regular presence) anymore and that thereafter we wouldn’t have to do anything. That is only how and why I went with them.”

“From the office of the SP at Barpeta, —I’m not exactly sure—but there were three-four busloads of people. Later, they took only two buses and left two behind. So many people just did not want to go, but they were beaten and forced into the bus and the doors shut. Then, they took us to the Matia Detention Camp (in Goalpara district) (This is about 91 kilometres, about a three hour drive from Barpeta). We spent the whole day and night without food. The next day, around 10 am, we were still sitting in the bus. Then they took us out and gave us a little bit of rice, after some time. We were so frightened, we could not even eat properly. After that, we thought we’d be allowed to sit inside the room where we were, for a bit. As soon as we sat down, they called us again, saying they needed to take our photos. We went, leaving our bags and money in the room where we had sat, thinking we would reclaim them after the photo session. But, after taking photos, they closed the gate of the Detention Centre, again. Then they began herding us into the bus like cattle, and one person, a teacher amongst us was protesting loudly, asking why the women were being treated so harshly and why they were being subjected to such suffering. He was even trying to stop the women from being taken away like that. However, despite his efforts, we were still forced onto the bus by police. The teacher who was resisting and trying to intervene was brutally beaten in front of our eyes, his eyes were covered, and his hands were tied behind his back,” she fearfully described to us.

Hajera trembled, saying, “Khairul Master [Khairul Islam, the teacher] was beaten so severely that he lost consciousness.” She continued, “The (Assam Border Police) gave each of us a packet, which contained two notes of that country’s currency (Bangladeshi currency). Then we were taken to the border, they made us get off the bus and cross the border, it was so terrifying and horrible.”

“They told us, ‘don’t say a word, don’t talk “, Hajera cried as she recounted the pain of a week ago.

She stopped and then said, “We stood there, in that dreadful place all night, drenched in the rain, hungry, at the border.”

“In the morning, Bangladeshi people and police found us and they asked us why we Indians had entered Bangladesh. Then they brought us back to the BSF (Border Security Force), the police of the two countries talked all day, but no one was there for us, to speak for us. They just physically pushed us around. We just kept crying and weeping in fear being tossed between the borders of the two countries border (No Man’s Land). Just like this, the last few days have been spent in terror. Then, the police caught us and put us in a camp. The next morning, the police from both countries talked about us, but reached no agreement; no one agreed to take us!” Hajera added. “We don’t know how or why but suddenly we were driven back.”

Hajera’s son added, “Last night around 11 pm, that is the night of (May 31, Saturday) we received news that my mother (Hajera) and a woman named Sona Bhanu were both found on the Goalpara highway. I then called Jubbar bhai (local student leader, AAMSU) here, we took a car and rescued my mother. ”

Sona Bhanu:

Sona Bhanu is a 59-year-old widow from Burikumar village in Barpeta district, who was similarly allegedly “taken away” by the Assam police on May 25 and went missing. She suddenly reappeared on the Goalpara highway around 11:30 pm on June 1. Sona Bhanu’s journey to this point has been marked by a long-standing dispute over her citizenship. In 2013, the Barpeta Foreigners’ Tribunal declared her a foreigner, a decision upheld by the Gauhati High Court in 2016. However, the Supreme Court intervened in 2018, staying the Gauhati high court’s order. CJP has accessed a copy of her documents.

Her younger brother, Asraf Ali, expressed his frustration with the CJP team; “We have all the necessary documents, including our presence recorded in the 1951 NRC. Our parents are Indian, and all of us siblings are Indian citizens. How can my sister be considered Bangladeshi?” He highlighted a potential case of mistaken identity, explaining that a notice from the border police was initially issued in the name of “Kamala Bhanu” but was later altered to “Sona Bhanu” without explanation.

Asraf Ali recounted Sona Bhanu’s ordeal; “The Barpeta Tribunal declared my sister a foreigner and confined her to the Kokrajhar detention camp. After spending 3 years, 3 months, and 13 days in detention, she was released on bail and has since been required to report to the local police station weekly.”

Sona Bhanu herself described the terrifying events that unfolded, her voice trembling with fear. She recounted being forced towards Bangladesh by the police or force, spending a harrowing night in No Man’s Land. “I was bitten by leeches and mosquitoes all night, and I got a fever from getting wet in the rain,” she said, adding, “We were afraid they would shoot us dead in the dark of night, who knows?”

As per Bhanu’s account, she was driven back to India as part of the same group of people as Khatun.

Rahima Begum:

About 51 years old, Rahima, a Muslim women from the Padumoni village of Golaghat returned to her home from the No Man’s land between India and Bangladesh with the same batch of people, Hajera and Sona.

In a telephonic interview with team CJP, Rahima and her son Rakib Uddin Choudhury described the harrowing experience. Just like Sona and Hajera, Rahima was also pushed out to Bangladesh forcefully. Her son described her ordeal, “On 25 May the Assam Border Police told my mother to go to the police station to answer some questions. After spending the morning there, they took her to the Golaghat SP office. “He continued, “They then took my mother documents, and they collected fingerprints with those of some others.”

“My sisters and family members were there the whole day. But they were not allowed to meet my mother. Late night they took my Mother to Goalpara detention camp and then Border.”

Rahima’s son went on to describe the ordeal, “The Police who were with my mother and others, they gave them Bangladeshi notes (currency) and directed them to cross the border” Rahima added, “All we could see was paddy fields, mud and water. We just did not know what to do.”

She continued, “The others and I just walked between the paddy fields until we reached a village. But the people there chased us away and their border forces called us, beat us up a lot and told us to go back to where we came from.” Her son even claimed that his mother was subjected to violence by the Bangladeshi police.

Jahanara Begum-Ashifa Begum- Sahera Khatun:

Jahanara Begum of Diring Pathar Village under Biswanath Charali police Station of Sonipur Police Station was detained by the Assam police on May 25 and was fortunate to be back home –after a traumatic experience –on May 29. On May 27 one of her family members even went to the Matia Detention Centre and there met team CJP (including  Nanda Ghosh, Habibul Bepari, advocate Ashim Mubarak and advocate Dewan Abdur Rahim). When Jahanara fortuitously reached home, family members informed CJP.

In a telephonic interview with CJP, Jahanara was attempting to describe the unimaginable experience, even though she was quite unwell. She recounted that two other women, Ashifa Begum and Sahera Khatun of Dhekiajuli were also allegedly forced out of their homeland into ‘No Man’s Land’ before reaching back home. Their story is similar to Hajera and Shona’s account.

Unaccounted others: Also as per per Hajera and Sona Bhanu account to CJP, when they were “returned to Goalpara at night, there were five other men with them, meaning there were seven people in their group including Hajera and Sona. However they do not have any idea of their name or identity.

Meanwhile CJP has confirmed reports that Khairul Islam the teacher from Morigaon who was allegedly brutalised by the Assam Border Police at Matia Detention Centre was initially part of the group of 14 that had been pushed over into No Man’s Land but after that action the group was “divided” –by the Bangladeshi Security forces– into two parts of seven and seven and Khairul Islam was then in the other group. Rahima also told CJP that with her, one more woman had been brought back to Jorhat police station from no man’s land but she did not know her name.

With the level of unaccountability of the state authorities, human rights organisations and survivors have to use community methods to calculate the extent of the trauma.

Release from Matia detention camp:

Meawnhile, CJP team member, Zesmin Sultana has informed us that one similar victim of arbitrary detention, Rahim Ali back was sent back to his home in Goalapra District after being kept at the Matia Detention camp from May 29 and released on May 31, a detention period of two days. His identity is Rohim (Rahim) Ali, son of Dobiram Sangma, mother Jelmish Marak belonging to the Christian Garo trive from village Paikan pt-1, Krishnai.

Background of the Incident:

From the night of May 23, 2025, the Assam police initiated a widespread crackdown across all 33 districts, detaining approximately 300 individuals in many cases without notice or legal justification. Families and advocates were left uninformed about the detainees’ whereabouts, violating constitutional and legal norms. While around 150 were reportedly released, unconfirmed reports suggest 145 individuals—still fighting for their citizenship rights—were forcibly pushed across the border into ‘no man’s land’ between India and Bangladesh. These individuals include those declared foreigners by tribunals, those released on bail, even those litigating for restoration of citizenship. Notably, no formal deportation orders or bilateral repatriation agreements have been disclosed, leaving the affected families in uncertainty.

On one hand, many people are missing, and on the other hand, neither the police nor other administrative authorities are providing clarification to the families about the missing people who were taken away by the police.

Many victims’ families complain, saying they attempted to have an FIR registered at the police station but that the cops did not register one, following which they sent their complaint by post to the local SP

It is noteworthy that the CJP Assam team submitted this memorandum to the National Human Rights Commission, which was signed by the CJP Assam team members and legal team members and the chief convener of the Forum for Social Harmony.

Meanwhile, although there has been no major protest, there is anger among many people in Assam.  There is also a lot of discussion among people about who issued the orders and why were Indian citizens –even those with contested citizenship– sent to Bangladesh in such a cloak and dagger fashion. If some of them were actually Bangladeshi, why were deportation norms as detailed by the union government in the recent Rajubala proceedings not followed? Why did Bangladesh then not accept them? Most critically, where are those who are still missing? And who will pay for the trauma and torture subjected on ordinary Indians?

Related:

“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 Assam: When six ordinary Indian women were forcibly pushed out from India–No Man’s land– Bangladesh & then back appeared first on SabrangIndia.

What makes the judgment significant—but also contentious—is not merely its procedural holding, but the manner in which the Court treated the petitioner’s evidence. While the ruling rests on established precedents such as Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India (2019), it marks a notable shift from earlier Supreme Court positions that accepted minor discrepancies in names, dates, or residence as tolerable when weighed against the totality of credible documentary evidence.

As citizenship in Assam continues to be adjudicated through overlapping forums—FTs, NRC processes, and constitutional courts—this judgment bears important implications for legal strategy, evidentiary framing, and the fate of thousands accused of being ‘illegal immigrants.’ The case becomes a useful lens through which we may compare evolving judicial approaches to documentary evidence and procedural fairness.

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Rofiqul Hoque v. Union of India

Factual matrix

Rofiqul Hoque, the appellant, was declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal (FT), Jorhat, Assam, on March 4, 2017 under a reference by the Border Police. The basis: he had allegedly entered India illegally after the cut-off date of March 25, 1971. He contested this decision before the Gauhati High Court, which upheld the FT’s findings. In 2018, however, the petitioner’s name appeared in the draft NRC. He filed an SLP before the Supreme Court, arguing that such inclusion rebutted the FT’s conclusion.

Submissions by the parties

Appellant’s contentions:

• Inclusion in the draft NRC should have overriding effect and demonstrate that the petitioner is not a foreigner.
• The FT and High Court adopted a “pedantic” approach, rejecting evidence on grounds of minor discrepancies in age, name spellings, and address.
• Change in village domicile does not imply change in citizenship.

Respondents (Union of India and Assam government):

• Under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, the burden of proof is on the proceedee.
• NRC inclusion is neither determinative nor binding upon the FT or the State.
• Discrepancies in documentary evidence raised substantial doubts about the petitioner’s claimed lineage.

Legal issues framed by the SC

1. Whether the findings of the FT and the High Court suffered from legal infirmity or ignored credible evidence?
2. Whether inclusion of the appellant’s name in the draft NRC can nullify a prior declaration by an FT?

Court’s Findings: Scrutinising evidence, procedure, and statutory framework

The Court’s reasoning rests on two central legal foundations:

• The burden of proof placed on the alleged foreigner under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
• The non-binding nature of NRC inclusion for persons already declared foreigners, as per the Citizenship Rules, 2003, and the precedent in Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India.

On the merits of evidence and the burden under Section 9: The appellant relied on a combination of official records to establish his Indian citizenship through ancestry:

• Voter lists from 1966, 1970, 1993, 2010, and 2016 purportedly featuring his grandfather (Joynal Abdin), father (Majut Ali), and mother (Sopia Bibi).
• A duplicate school certificate issued in 2014, showing his date of birth as 20.07.1996 and naming his parents.
• An income tax PAN card issued post-2017, and inclusion in the 2018 draft NRC.

Despite this, both the Tribunal and the Gauhati High Court held the petitioner failed to discharge the burden placed on him by Section 9. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stressing that the proceedee must prove:

1. Presence of ancestors in India before March 25, 1971, and
2. His linkage to those ancestors through credible, consistent documents.

The Supreme Court found the petitioner’s case wanting on the following counts:

1. Village discrepancy:

• • The appellant claimed descent from Joynal Abdin of Daobhangi village, Dhubri district.
  • Voter records showed Joynal Abdin in Kekurchar village, Sivasagar district, with no affidavit or evidence explaining this change.
  • There was no plea or corroborative document to establish a migration history, which would have reconciled the apparent inconsistency.

“The Tribunal as well as the High Court have considered these documents and have found that those earlier voter lists relate to a person located in some other village than the one of which the appellant claimed to be a resident. In such circumstances, the appellant ought to have stated in his affidavit, or demonstrated by some documentary evidence, that his ancestors had migrated from that village to the other village where the appellant was reported to be residing, but, according to the Tribunal, there was no such claim by the appellant in his affidavit. Therefore, the Tribunal discarded the probative value of those voter list entries.” (Para 15)

2. Name and lineage doubts:

• • The Court questioned whether Joynal Abdin in 1966 and 1993 voter lists was the same person. Ages did not align; e.g., he was listed as 38 in 1966 and 70 in 1993 (should have been ~65).
  • The father’s name appeared inconsistently, and the mother’s name (Sopia Bibi) was absent in crucial documents.
  • The voter lists also showed unnatural age jumps, e.g., Majut Ali’s age was 30 in 1993 but 45 in 2010—missing consistency.

“Additionally, the High Court noticed that as per the affidavit of the appellant, Joynal Abdin Seikh was a resident of Daobhangi village whereas in the voter list of 1993, Joynal Abdin was shown as a resident of Kekurchar village, which is altogether different from the village of which the appellant claims to be a resident. Further, the High Court noticed that in the 1993 voters list, the name of the mother of the appellant, namely, Sopia Bibi, is conspicuous by its absence.” [Para 5 (vi)]

“As regards the voters list of 2010, the High Court observed that here Majut Ali’s age is shown as 45 years whereas in 1993 list it was 30 years therefore, in the 2010 voters list, it ought to have been 47 years. Besides above, there was a noticeable change in respect of the place of residence because in 1993 list, the village of domicile is shown as Kekurchar whereas in 2010 voter list it is Daobhangi.” [Para 5 (vii)]

3. School certificate deficiency:

• • The certificate was a duplicate, issued ten years after the appellant allegedly left school.
  • No explanation for delay in issuance or production.
  • Crucially, the headmaster was not called to prove its contents, failing the test under the Evidence Act.
  • Hence, the document’s probative value was discounted.

“Interestingly, the school leaving certificate on which heavy reliance was placed by the appellant was also doubted as there appeared no reason for it to have been obtained 10 years after passing from the institution. Moreover, the headmaster of the school was not called for to prove the authenticity of the certificate of which duplicate was produced.” (Para 15)

The Court emphasised that these deficiencies went beyond mere clerical errors. They showed a lack of effort by the appellant to resolve material inconsistencies through affidavit, oral evidence, or additional linkage documents.

On NRC inclusion and its legal consequence: On the question of whether the appellant’s inclusion in the 2018 draft NRC nullified the earlier FT declaration, the Court delivered an unequivocal “No.”

It relied heavily on:

• Rule 4A and Paragraph 3(2) of the Citizenship Rules, 2003, and
• The three-judge bench decision in Abdul Kuddus v. Union of India, (2019) 6 SCC 604.

As noted by the SC in its order, the Citizenship Rules clearly state that:

“…the names of persons who have been declared as illegal migrants or foreigners by the competent authority shall not be included in the consolidated list.” (Para 23)

In para 25–27, the Court emphasised:

• The Registering Authority under NRC has no power to override a quasi-judicial order of a Foreigners Tribunal.
• Even if a person’s name is erroneously included, that inclusion is legally ineffective unless the FT order is reversed by a higher court.
• The “competent authority” under the Citizenship Rules refers specifically to the Foreigners Tribunal, not administrative officers.

Therefore, even though the appellant’s name appeared in the draft NRC, the Supreme Court held that:

“In view of the decision of this Court in Abdul Kuddus (supra), firstly, consequent to the declaration by the Tribunal that appellant is a foreigner, the name of the appellant could not have been included in the draft NRC and, secondly, even if it has been included, it would not annul the declaration made by the Tribunal.” (Para 27)

This closed the door on the appellant’s attempt to claim citizenship via NRC inclusion.

4. Final holding and consequences

After a detailed evaluation of both factual inconsistencies and legal standards, the Supreme Court held as follows:

• The FT’s findings, as affirmed by the Gauhati High Court, were not legally flawed, arbitrary, or perverse.
• The appellant’s inclusion in the draft NRC had no legal effect, given his prior declaration as a foreigner.
• The appellant had failed to prove his Indian citizenship, either by establishing consistent lineage or through rebutting the FT declaration.
• The interim release order granted in 2019 (based on NRC inclusion) was vacated.

“In light of the discussion above, and our conclusions on the issues referred to above, we are of the view that there is no merit in this appeal. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. The release order which was passed at an interim stage stands discharged. Consequently, the appellant shall be treated and dealt with as a foreigner.” (Para 30)

Notably, it is imperative to highlight here that the Court refrained from commenting on whether the NRC itself was legally flawed or reliable. Its approach was purely technical: an FT order, once passed, takes precedence unless overturned by a superior court—not by administrative inclusion.

The complete judgment may be read below.

Previous judicial treatment of documentary discrepancies

While the Supreme Court in Rofiqul Hoque adopted a stringent approach, other judgments have demonstrated a more nuanced understanding of documentary discrepancies, recognising the challenges faced by individuals in rural and marginalized communities.

1. Anuwar Hussain @ Md. Anowar Hussain v. Union of India & Ors. (Gauhati High Court, 2014)

In this case, the petitioner was declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal due to discrepancies in his father’s name across various documents. The Tribunal noted variations such as “Samed Ali,” “Abdul Samed,” and “Samed.” The Gauhati High Court bench led by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan had observed that such variations are common in rural areas, particularly among the Muslim community, and held that these discrepancies were not significant enough to draw an adverse inference regarding the petitioner’s citizenship.

“In so far discrepancy in the name of petitioner’s father is concerned, it is a common phenomenon in rural areas, more particularly among people of Muslim community, to have more than one name or there being variation in the name such as in the name of the petitioner’s father. The discrepancy in the name as noticed- Samed Ali, Abdul Samed and Samed, is not so great as to draw adverse inference regarding the citizenship of the petitioner. On the ground of there being such discrepancy in the name of petitioner’s father, petitioner could not have been declared as a foreigner.” (Para 11)

The Court also addressed discrepancies in the petitioner’s age, noting that minor differences in age declarations are expected in rural settings and should not be the sole basis for declaring someone a foreigner.

2. Mamata Bhowmik v. Union of India & Ors. (Gauhati High Court, 2019)

The petitioner was declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal, which rejected a certified copy of the 1966 voter list on the grounds that it lacked a physical signature and did not comply with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The Gauhati High Court found that the Tribunal erred in its assessment, noting that the document was digitally signed and legally valid under the Information Technology Act, 2000.

“The certified copy also contains a further note that the certificate is digitally signed and, therefore, needs no physical signature… the certificate is legally valid under the Information Technology Act, 2000.” (Para 3)

The Court emphasized the need for Tribunals to consider the authenticity and legal validity of documents, even when presented in digital form, and set aside the Tribunal’s order.

3. Sirajul Hoque v. State of Assam (Supreme Court of India, 2019)

In this case, the appellant was declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal due to discrepancies in the spelling of his grandfather’s name and differences in the villages listed in various documents. The Supreme Court bench of Justices Rohinton Nariman and Vineet Saran, however, found that the appellant had successfully established his lineage through consistent documentation of his father’s and grandfather’s identities, despite minor spelling variations. The Court held that such minor discrepancies did not undermine the credibility of the appellant’s claim to citizenship.

“Having gone through these documents, we are of the view that it is not possible to state that Kematullah is not the same despite being named Kefatullah in some of the documents. This being so, the grandfather’s identity, father’s identity etc. has been established successfully by the appellant. Further, the mere fact that the father may later have gone to another village is no reason to doubt this document.” (Para 4)

The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and the Foreigners Tribunal, thereby affirming the appellant’s Indian citizenship.

4. Mohammad Iddrish Ali v. Union of India & Ors. (Gauhati High Court, 2020)

In this case, the petitioner was declared a foreigner despite submitting multiple documents, including voter lists from 1965 and 1970 bearing his father’s and uncle’s names. The Tribunal disregarded these documents, citing the absence of the petitioner’s name in the 1975 voter list. The Gauhati High Court bench of Justices Manojit Bhuyan and Parthivjyoti Saikia found that the Tribunal committed an error in appreciating the evidence and emphasized that strict rules of evidence are not applicable in Tribunal proceedings.

“Reverting to the case in hand, the strict rules of evidence are not applicable in a tribunal. Nothing is required to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt.”

The Court set aside the Tribunal’s order and directed a fresh opinion, highlighting the importance of a holistic assessment of evidence in such cases.

5. Jagat Bahadur Chetri v. Union of India & Ors. (Gauhati High Court, 2023)

An 85-year-old resident of Assam was declared a foreigner based on a reference by an election official, despite evidence of his birth in Assam in 1937 and decades of service as a civilian employee in the military. The Gauhati High Court criticised the “non-application of mind” by the election official and set aside the Tribunal’s ruling, ordering compensation for the petitioner.

“If Jagat Bahadur Chetri was born in the year 1937 and his place of birth is Dibrugarh and there is no material that subsequent to his birth, he migrated to the specified territory and thereafter re-entered the State of Assam subsequent to 25.03.1971, we are of the view that it was an absolute non-application of mind on the part of the ERO of 52 Dispur Legislative Assembly Constituency to have referred the petitioner to the Foreigners Tribunal for an opinion as to whether the petitioner Jagat Bahadur Chetri is a foreigner who entered the State of Assam subsequent to 25.03.1971 from the specified territory.” (Para 4)

“It appears that the enquiring officer had not done its duty in the proper earnest and there can be no reason why the petitioner Jatat Bahadur Chetri would refuse to divulge the information that he was serving in Indian Army since 1963.” (Para 5)

“However, for causing inconvenience to the petitioner without any reasonable cause and without any application of mind, a cost of Rs. 10, 000/- (rupees ten thousand) is imposed on the ERO of 52 Dispur Legislative Assembly Constituency to be paid to the petitioner.” (Para 7)

This case highlights the importance of due diligence and the consideration of an individual’s lifelong ties to the country in citizenship determinations.

6.  Rahim Ali @ Abdur Rahim v. State of Assam & Ors. (Supreme Court of India, 2024)

In this case, the appellant was declared a foreigner based on minor discrepancies in the spelling of names and dates in official documents. The Supreme Court bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed that such variations are common and often arise due to differences in language, pronunciation, and clerical errors. The Court emphasized that these minor inconsistencies should not be the sole basis for declaring someone a foreigner.

“As far as the discrepancy (ies) in dates and spellings are concerned, we are of the view that the same are minor in nature. Variation in name spelling is not a foreign phenomenon in preparation of the Electoral Roll. Further, the Electoral Roll has no acceptance in the eyes of law insofar as proof of date of birth is concerned. A casual entry by the enumerators when noting and entering the name(s) and dates of birth(s) as also the address(es) of the person(s) while making preparatory surveys for the purposes of preparing the Electoral Rolls cannot visit the appellant with dire consequences. Moreover, in our country, sometimes a title is prefixed or suffixed to a name such that the same person may be known also by one or two aliases. The Tribunal seems to have been totally oblivious to all this.” (Para 41)

“The State of Assam, as per the Census 2011, boasts of 72.19% literacy rate, with females at 66.27% and males at 77.85%. However, this was not the case during the 1960s or even 1970s. Not just in Assam but in many States, it is seen that names of people, even on important government documents can have and do have varied spellings depending on them being in English or Hindi or Bangla or Assamese or any other language, for that matter. Moreover, names of persons which are written either by the persons preparing the Voters List or by the personnel making entries into different Government records, the spelling of the name, based upon its pronunciation, may take on slight variations. It is not uncommon throughout India that different spellings may be written in the regional/vernacular language and in English. Such/same person will have a differently spelt name in English and the local language. This is more pronounced where due to specific pronunciation habits or styles there can be different spellings for the same name in different languages.” (Para 42)

“In the considered opinion of this Court, the same would further buttress the appellant’s claim, that not being in the wrong, and being an ignorant person, he, truthfully and faithfully produced the official records as they were in his possession. We do not see any attempt by the appellant to get his official records prepared meticulously without any discrepancy. The conduct of an illegal migrant would not be so casual.” (Para 43)

The Court also highlighted that the authorities must have a material basis for initiating proceedings under the Foreigners Act and that arbitrary or baseless suspicions cannot justify such actions. Consequently, the Court quashed the orders of the Foreigners Tribunal and the High Court, restoring the appellant’s citizenship. (Detailed analysis of the same judgment may be read here.)

Tightening the evidentiary threshold?

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Rofiqul Hoque v. Union of India underscores a marked shift toward evidentiary stringency in citizenship adjudication under the Foreigners Act, 1946. By upholding the findings of the Foreigners Tribunal and the Gauhati High Court, the Court reasserted two core principles: (1) that the burden of proof lies squarely on the proceedee under Section 9, and (2) that inclusion in the NRC—particularly a draft list—does not override a quasi-judicial declaration of foreign status.

What makes this decision legally significant is its departure from earlier jurisprudence that acknowledged the lived realities of individuals from rural and marginalized communities—realities that often produce inconsistencies in names, ages, and addresses in official records. Judgments such as Sirajul Hoque, Md. Rahim Ali, and Md. Anuwar Hussain adopted a more flexible, contextual reading of documentary discrepancies. In contrast, Rofiqul Hoque takes a formalistic approach, requiring strict evidentiary coherence even when documentary irregularities might stem from administrative lapses rather than wilful deceit.

This evolving judicial posture has far-reaching implications. It raises the evidentiary threshold for proving citizenship, heightens the risk of wrongful exclusion, and underscores the primacy of FT decisions over NRC data, regardless of administrative errors or procedural opacity in the latter. Going forward, both legal practitioners and claimants must place greater emphasis on reconciling all documentary inconsistencies through affidavits, oral testimony, and corroborative records.

In essence, Rofiqul Hoque reinforces the authority of Foreigners Tribunals and sets a cautionary precedent: in the current legal regime, technical lapses—even those reasonably explained—may carry irrevocable consequences for individuals seeking to prove their citizenship in Assam.

Image Courtesy: scobserver.in

Related:

From Detention to Deportation: The mass deportations and detention crisis at Assam’s Matia centre

Restoring Citizenship, Rebuilding Lives: CJP continues its journey in Assam

Declared Foreigner, buried Indian: The tragic death of Abdul Matleb in Assam’s detention camp

SC: Only 10 deported, 33 of 63 contest foreigner status from the Matia Transit Camp, Assam

The post Supreme Court and the Rofiqul Hoque Judgment: A new chapter in Assam’s citizenship jurisprudence on discrepancies in documentary evidence appeared first on SabrangIndia.

During the hearing of February 25, the case of Ajabha Khatun was mentioned before the court, with senior advocate Aparna Bhat stating that the challenge against the Foreigner Tribunal’s order declaring Khatun to be foreigner remains pending in the Gauhati High Court. She emphasised that since the High Court has yet to consider her case, any final order of deportation against her would be legally untenable. The counsel further argued that without the exhaustion of legal remedies, deportation would amount to a grave miscarriage of justice, particularly given the procedural and evidentiary flaws in the Tribunal’s decision.

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Abhay Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan acknowledged that Khatun’s case is still under judicial consideration at the High Court level. Given this, while the Supreme Court declined to pass any interim relief at this stage, the case has been kept pending. Moreover, the SC and asked the counsel for Khatun to seek the appropriate orders from the High Court itself. Consequently, no formal notice was issued in her case. However, the order serves as an important legal nudge, as it can now be used to urge the Gauhati High Court to expedite hearing of her appeal from the order of the Foreigner’s Tribunal. The interim relief sought is stay her deportation until her case is fully heard. This is critical because a wrongful deportation, even before judicial review is complete, would violate fundamental rights, including the right to life and protection from arbitrary state action.

The court stated in its order that “The learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant pointed out that the name of the        applicant figures at serial no.18 on the list submitted by the Government of Assam of the foreigners who are to be deported. She states that the applicant has challenged the order of the Tribunal declaring her as a foreign national by filing a writ petition before the High Court. If that be so, it is for the applicant to seek appropriate interim relief from the High Court in that behalf. Therefore, at this stage, we are not passing any order on this Application.”

In the original Rajubala Das v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court directed the Assam government to submit a comprehensive list of individuals facing deportation by March 17, 2025. This directive underscores the need for transparency in the process and ensures that the state accounts for each detainee’s status before proceeding with any deportation.

SG Tushar Mehta had, during the hearing, requested for some time to provide the Court with the decision of the executive in regards to the issue of deportation. The case is now scheduled for a further hearing on March 21, 2025, where the fate of many, including Ajabha Khatun, will be closely examined.

In the order, the Bench stated “Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General, on instructions, states that the issue of deportation of the foreigners which arises in this Petition is being dealt with at the highest executive level and if time is granted, he will place on record the decision taken by the appropriate authority. We grant him time till 21st March, 2025.”

The order of February 25, 2025 may be read here.

Senior counsel Aparna Bhat argued the matter in the Supreme Court assisted by advocates Srishti Agnihotri and Sanjana Thomas. Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta leads the CJP’s team in Assam and is arguing the matter in the Gauhati High Court.

Why was this impleadment essential?

The case of Ajabha Khatun exposes the deep flaws in Assam’s citizenship determination process, where individuals are arbitrarily declared foreigners and detained without substantive proof. Khatun, a resident of Assam, has been held at the Matia Detention Camp despite a lack of evidence linking her to any foreign country. She is among the 63 detainees the Assam government claims are foreigners and must be deported—a claim that has been challenged for its lack of legal and evidentiary basis.

The state’s affidavit, submitted in court, asserts that 270 persons, including 63 from Bangladesh, are currently detained at Matia. In past hearings, including one on January 22, 2025, Assam has repeatedly argued that none of these detainees are Indian and that deportation is warranted. However, when directly questioned by the Supreme Court on February 4, 2025 about the country of origin of these detainees, the Assam government’s counsel erroneously insisted that all were declared foreigners—a claim that lacks evidence and legal credibility.

Khatun’s case is part of the broader legal challenge against arbitrary detentions of individuals declared foreigners by Foreigners Tribunals in Assam. The original petitioner, Rajubala Das, had sought directives preventing Assam authorities from detaining individuals without demonstrating a realistic possibility of deportation. Ajabha Khatun, detained in Matia Detention Camp, has filed both an Impleadment Application and an Application for Directions to challenge the order facilitating her deportation. She argues that she is an Indian citizen and that the Tribunal’s decision was marred by procedural and evidentiary irregularities.

Denial of fundamental rights in Ajabha Khatun’s case

Ajabha Khatun’s case, once again, highlights the systematic denial of fundamental rights to individuals declared foreigners by Assam’s Foreigners Tribunals (FTs). In her case, her denial of rights began in 1997, when the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) for Barpeta Assembly Constituency doubted her citizenship and forwarded her case to SP Barpeta (Competent Authority) under the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals Act, 1983/The Foreigners Act, 1946 and Rules made thereunder. The Foreigners Tribunal, Barpeta district passed its order declaring her non-Indian on February 8, 2019. She was arrested, however, only in September 2024 after which CJP has assisted her in filing an appeal before the Gauhati High Court. It was only after the state filed an affidavit in the original Rajubala case, providing a list of 63 detainees on February 3, 2025, through which the government erroneously informed the Court were foreigners that the CJP team found Ajabha to figure on the list (serial number 18).

Since her citizenship had been doubted and the question of whether the said Ajabha Khatun was a citizen of India or not remained unanswered, her right to cast a vote has been put in abeyance. Notably, while her constitutional rights to vote were snatched away, the ERO inquiry report which does not record any reasons for the arbitrary action in striking her name of the electoral rolls raised more questions than it answers.

From the moment a notice was issued against her, in 2017, she was deprived of procedural fairness—a core component of natural justice. During the FT proceedings despite the proffering of witness testimony and crucial documentary evidence, a misplaced application of burden of proof was applied, her father’s evidence deposing that she was his daughter was disregarded and she was declared non-Indian.

Additionally, it is essential to highlight that an investigation report was submitted by Local Verification Officer Dipankar Baruah to the Election Registration Officer (ERO), 43 No. Barpeta LAC. This report, marked as Annexure-A, formed the basis for the reference made against the Opposing Party. However, points 15 and 16 of Annexure-A expose glaring inconsistencies:

• Point 15 explicitly asks whether the Opposing Party (Ajabha Khatun) migrated to Assam (Yes/No), yet the LVO fails to provide any response.
• Point 16 further inquires that, if the Opposing Party did migrate—about the place of origin (State or Country) and the time frame of migration (before January 1, 1966, between January 1, 1966 and March 24, 1971, or after March 25, 1971). Both these critical fields are left entirely blank in the investigation report.

This omission makes it undeniably clear that the LVO had no basis in fact to substantiate the allegation of migration against the Opposing Party. If the investigating officer himself did not raise any doubts, on what basis did the ERO and Superintendent of Police (SP) initiate this reference?

With no substantive claim or evidence against the Opposing Party, the reference is arbitrary, baseless, and legally unsustainable. Ajabha’s challenge against the order of the Tribunal remains is now pending before the Gauhati High Court.

Beyond these substantive and procedural violations, Khatun’s detention at Matia Detention Camp amounts to an infringement of her right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Arrested in September 2024, she has been confined for an indefinite period without a criminal charge, in conditions the Supreme Court itself has recognised as deplorable. Furthermore, her right to equality under Article 14 has been denied, as citizenship determination processes disproportionately target marginalised communities, particularly Bengali-speaking Muslims. The denial of her right to reside and settle in India (Article 19) further compounds this injustice, as she faces the possibility of deportation despite having lived in Assam her entire life.

Besides, since 1997, her access to receive the benefit of government schemes has been limited, due to non-issuance of Aadhar cards. Since her unique identity card has not been issued by the government, basic welfare facilities, such as ration, has been out of bounds for her.

This case is further crucial because it exemplifies the larger crisis of wrongful citizenship determinations in Assam. If Khatun were to have been deported despite the absence of substantive evidence, it would have set a dangerous precedent where individuals, particularly the poor and marginalised, can be stripped of their citizenship arbitrarily. The state’s approach in this case—ignoring due process, misrepresenting facts before the Supreme Court, and failing to establish any real connection between detainees and a foreign country—exposes the structural failures of the FT system. Ensuring that Khatun’s rights are upheld is not just about her case; it is about holding the state accountable for its unconstitutional and inhumane treatment of individuals declared foreigners.

More broadly, the case underscores why every person under the threat of deportation must be allowed to exhaust all legal remedies before any steps are undertaken. Deportation is an irreversible action with life-altering consequences, often resulting in statelessness, separation from families, and denial of basic human rights. Ensuring access to legal recourse safeguards against wrongful expulsions and upholds the rule of law. Given the well-documented flaws in the FT process, the judiciary must act as a check on executive overreach, ensuring that no individual is deprived of their rights without rigorous scrutiny.

Key issues in the case

1. Arbitrary declaration as a foreigner: The applicant was declared a foreigner without substantive proof.
2. Violation of procedural fairness: The Foreigners Tribunal failed to provide a reasonable opportunity for her to prove her citizenship.
3. Lack of material linking the applicant to another country: The State has failed to establish any connection between the applicant and a foreign country.
4. Impact of wrongful deportation: Deportation could lead to statelessness and irreversible human rights violations.

Legal grounds for impleadment and directions

The applicant’s legal claims are twofold:

1. Impleadment as a necessary party: Given the direct impact of the Supreme Court’s deportation order, Ajabha Khatun must be impleaded to protect her fundamental rights as her case remains pending in the Gauhati High Court and her legal remedies have not been exhausted.
2. Application for Directions to stay the deportation order: The applicant seeks judicial intervention to halt her deportation, arguing that the Tribunal’s decision was unlawful. Since there had been no grant to interim relief by the Gauhati High Court, the applicant urged the Supreme Court to ensure that no action is taken against her till she is heard and her proofs of citizenship are appreciated.

Violation of Fundamental Rights:

1. Article 14 (Right to Equality): Discriminatory treatment in citizenship determination processes disproportionately affects marginalised communities.
2. Article 19 (Right to Reside and Settle in India): Deportation without due process violates her constitutional right to reside in India.
3. Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty): Arbitrary detention and wrongful deportation violate her right to live with dignity.

Lack of evidence for proving foreign nationality:

1. The Foreigners Tribunal’s declaration was based on procedural flaws and lacked substantive evidence. The Tribunal did not appreciate the voter rolls presented as evidence, containing her father’s name, her husband’s name as well as her own name.
2. The FT ignored her father’s testimony which flies in the face of the primary rules of Evidence under the Evidence Act.
3. The State’s assertion that her nationality is “known” –in one set of documents –while keeping that category “blank” in another —contradicts both the facts and the Tribunal’s failure to identify any foreign connection. While her name figured in the name of the 63 deemed worthy of deportation by the state, her legal remedies have yet to be exhausted and she only has a FT order against her.

Pending legal challenge before Gauhati High Court:

1. The applicant’s challenge before the Gauhati High Court (WP(C) 6626/2024) is at the motion stage.
2. Proceeding with deportation while the case is sub judice violates principles of judicial fairness.

Analysis of the Foreigners Tribunal proceedings

The Foreigners Tribunal 1^st Barpeta, Assam, in its order dated February 8, 2019, declared Ajabha Khatun a post-1971 foreigner based on alleged failure to prove Indian citizenship. However, it is the argument of the applicant that the order reveals severe procedural and evidentiary flaws:

• No independent investigation appears to have been conducted to verify her citizenship before the notice was served to her and her name struck off the electoral rolls
• Documentary evidence was disregarded without justification.
• The burden of proof was misapplied under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.

It is essential to note that the following evidence had been submitted by Ajabha Khatun to prove her citizenship:

• Voter lists from 1966, 1970, 1989, and 1997 showing her grandfather, father, and herself as registered voters.
• Gaonburah certificates confirming familial relationships.
• Affidavits and cross-examinations corroborating her Indian lineage.

As per the applicant, the Tribunal rejected this evidence based on hyper-technical objections, without addressing the substantive proof of her citizenship. Further issues with the decision of the FT are:

• The inquiry report forming the basis of the allegations was not served on the applicant.
• The report merely stated a “suspicion” of foreign nationality without any concrete evidence.
• The ERO’s report striking her off the electoral rolls has also been from the documents available been the result of a conclusion reached without any investigation or inquiry.
• The Tribunal’s approach was inconsistent with established judicial principles requiring prima facie material before declaring a person a foreigner.

As per the applicant, the Tribunal’s decision stands in direct violation of established precedents, as it fails to establish a prima facie case. In legal proceedings, the necessity of demonstrating an initial case with sufficient evidence is fundamental to ensuring due process. By neglecting this requirement, the Tribunal undermines the legitimacy of its decision-making process. Furthermore, the absence of substantive evidence renders the declaration legally untenable. Without concrete proof to support its conclusions, the decision lacks a firm legal foundation and is susceptible to challenge. Such a deficiency not only weakens the authority of the ruling but also raises concerns about its adherence to principles of justice and fairness. The IA provides the following judicial percent’s that were violated by the FT while declaring its order:

1. Lal Babu Hussein v. Electoral Registration Officer [(1995) 3 SCC 100] – Due process requires disclosure of reasons before removing a person from voter rolls.
2. State of Assam v. Moslem Mondal (2013 SCC OnLine Gau 1) – Tribunals must ensure prima facie material exists before issuing notices.
3. Haidar Ali v. Union of India (2021 SCC OnLine Gau 683) – Recognised the perfunctory and arbitrary manner of Foreigners Tribunal proceedings.
4. Md. Rahim Ali v. State of Assam (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1695) – Authorities must have substantive grounds for suspecting foreign nationality.

Conclusion and prayer

The case of Ajabha Khatun exemplifies the systemic failures in citizenship determination in Assam. If the Supreme Court proceeds to direct deportation of those “”declared to be foreigners”, without acknowledging that at least 20 of the 63 inmates have cases pending at various Constitutional Courts, and without considering Ajabha Khatun’s case, it will result in violation of constitutional and international human rights norms. The applicant, through her interventions, had requested the Supreme Court to:

1. Implead her as Party Petitioner No. 2 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 234 of 2020.
2. Stay the deportation order until her case before the Gauhati High Court is resolved.
3. Scrutinise Foreigners Tribunal procedures to prevent arbitrary declarations of foreign nationality.

This case underscores the urgent need for procedural safeguards and judicial oversight in citizenship determination to prevent wrongful deprivation of fundamental rights.

Related:

Relentless Pursuit of Justice: CJP’s Advocacy for Citizenship Rights in Assam

CJP triumphs in securing bail for Assam’s Sahid Ali: A step towards restoring citizenship

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

Assam citizenship crisis: Aadhaar unlocked, lives shackled

The post Marked for deportation, denied due process: Ajabha Khatun, among the 63 facing detention in Assam, seeks Supreme Court’s intervention appeared first on SabrangIndia.

These individuals, all from the Bengali Muslim community, were summoned to the Superintendent of Police’s office under the pretence of signing documents on Monday. Instead, they were placed onto a bus bound for the infamous Matia transit camp in Goalpara district, 50 km away. The heartache of separation filled the air as the police bus carried away one member from each of the 28 families, leaving their loved ones crying in the streets.

The CJP Team on the ground was able to document these individuals being taken away.

The detainees were identified as:

1. Keramat Ali
2. Abdul Latif
3. Kitab Ali
4. Sirajul Haque
5. Ibrahim Ali
6. Hanif Ali
7. Munjor Alom
8. Ainal Mondal
9. Shahadat Ali
10. Sha Ali Akand
11. Sonauddin
12. Ramej Uddin
13. Amjat Ali
14. Based Ali
15. Salam Ali
16. Abdul Joynal Mir
17. Shukur Miya
18. Malam Miya
19. Anowar Hussain
20. Basaton Nessa
21. Aimona Khatun
22. Ajbha Khatun
23. Sobiya Khatun
24. Monowara Begum
25. Jabeda Khatun
26. Sufiya Khatun
27. Raijon Begum
28. Eyaton Nessa

The incident was part of a much larger and deeply unsettling process. As of August 22, 2024, data from the Assam Assembly reveals that over 54,411 people have been labelled as “declared foreigners” by Foreigners Tribunals (FTs) since 2005. The BJP-led government, under Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, has ramped up these detentions, recently inaugurating a permanent detention camp in Matia—the largest such facility in Asia—operational since January 27, 2023.

Previously, six temporary detention camps were scattered across Assam, located in Goalpara, Kokrajhar, Tezpur, Silchar, Dibrugarh, and Jorhat. Kokrajhar is the only one for women. The Matia camp, a sprawling complex, now serves as the main site for detaining individuals labelled as foreigners, often those arrested after rulings by FTs.

The Foreigners Tribunals, set up under the Foreigners Act of 1946, were meant to address illegal migration. Assam alone has around 100 tribunals, primarily to determine the status of “doubtful” voters and foreigners. These tribunals came into being following years of agitation by the indigenous Assamese population, concerned that illegal migrants from Bangladesh were threatening their identity and culture.

Amidst this, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) has stepped in to provide legal aid, helping numerous detainees secure release and even overturning some tribunal decisions. Many detainees are released on bail or declared Indian citizens by the High Court, but the painful cycle of detainment and uncertain futures continues. The present tragedy in Barpeta struck a deep emotional chord, as families wailed and pleaded while their loved ones were dragged away. It is to be noted that the CJP Assam team had attempted to visit the Matia detention camp soon after the incident, but the authorities denied them entry and barred them from gathering information about the detainees’ conditions.

For the families, the separation felt on that fateful day was more than just a momentary loss—it was a fracture in the bonds of love, trust, and belonging.

Related:

Assam CM call to expel ‘Miya Muslims,’ leads to violence against Bengali speaking Muslim Labourers

Assam: Partial relief, over 9 lakh people to get Aadhaar card, serious questions for excluded 18 lakh

Assam CM compares districts of Assam with Bangladesh; calls some of the districts ‘tiny Bangladesh’

12-year legal battle for identity: Rahim Ali’s posthumous victory in Assam’s citizenship tribunal

The post Families torn asunder: 28 Bengali Muslims taken from homes, detained as “Declared Foreigners” in Assam appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a recent instance, on July 11, a judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court that put an end to the 12-year legal battle that Rahim Ali fought against the state to establish his Indian nationality. However, justice came too late in his case, as Rahim Ali passed away two and a half years before with the tag of a “foreigner” against his name. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah had made scathing remarks against the Courts and Tribunals dealing with the case of citizenship in Assam, and had observed that authorities cannot randomly accuse people of being foreigners and initiate investigation into a person’s nationality without there being some material basis or information to sustain the suspicion.  Details of the case can be read here and here.

Therefore, once can say that when it comes to proving citizenship of those put under scanner of the state in Assam, the process itself is the punishment. Sher Ali and Jamila Khatun were required to appear before the Foreigners Tribunal every month, disrupting their lives, and leaving their livelihood and peace of mind in jeopardy. The couple felt they were being selectively targeted, possibly due to their religion, language, or surname. For them, being subjected to this kind of harassment in their own land raised the question: How many Indians, especially Muslims, must endure such torture of being falsely labelled as Bangladeshis in their own country year after year?

Sher Ali and Jamila Khatun sitting outside their home

Sher Ali’s Ordeal:

Sher Ali had always known he was a true Indian, he had been born and raised in Kawadi No. 2 Sonaikhola. However, one day, he received a notice that changed everything, accusing him of being a foreigner—a claim he vehemently denied.

Determined to clear his name, Sher Ali gathered all the documents he could find to prove his citizenship, including his father’s name in the NRC (National Register for Citizenship) of 1951, voter lists from 1966, 1970, and 1979, and land records. Despite his efforts, the Investigating Officer (I/O) submitted a false inquiry report, claiming Sher Ali was a foreigner.

It is essential to highlight here that the I/O in the case had never visited Sher Ali’s house or spoken to the witnesses, rather he had fabricated their statements and had ignored the evidence Sher Ali provided before filing the report in the case. Frustrated and helpless, Sher Ali had endured the case dragging on for 13 years until he finally received a notice in 2020.

Refusing to give up, Sher Ali rallied his villagers and relatives, who all attested to his birth and citizenship before the Foreigners Tribunal. He submitted additional documents and witnesses to support his case. As the case went to trial, Sher Ali stood confidently before the Tribunal, knowing he had done everything he could to prove his citizenship.

Jamila Khatun’s Struggle:

Jamila Khatun, a 47-year-old woman from Kawadi No. 2 Sonaikhola, Assam, found herself entangled in a legal battle to prove her Indian citizenship. Despite being born and raised in India, Jamila was accused of being a foreigner, a claim she vehemently denied. Jamila’s family had lived in India for generations. Her grandfather’s name appeared in the 1966 voter list, and her father’s name was enrolled in the 1970 voter list. Jamila herself had been a regular voter, with her name appearing in the 2010, 2015, and 2020 voter lists.

Determined to clear her name, Jamila gathered documents to prove her citizenship, including voter lists, land records, and a ration card. She submitted these documents to the court, along with a written statement detailing her family history and her own life story. Despite the overwhelming evidence, the I/O submitted a false inquiry report, claiming Jamila was a foreigner. The I/O never visited Jamila’s house or spoke to her witnesses, relying instead on fabricated statements.

CJP Team Assam with Sher Ali and Jamila Khatun outside their home

CJP team and the legal fight of establishing citizenship:

After one year and four months of effort by the Assam team of Citizens for Justice and Peace, both Sher Ali and Jamila Khatun were finally declared as Indian citizens. The legal team vigorously argued their case before the Foreigners Tribunal, contesting the false allegations made in the inquiry report submitted by the I/O. The team further demonstrated that the couple was not from East Pakistan/Bangladesh as had been falsely claimed, and the I/O’s report was based on inadequate investigation and fabricated statements. It was brought to the Court’s notice that the I/O had failed to visit the accused and had not fairly discharged his duties, and the report did not provide any evidence of their alleged foreign nationality. Furthermore, the case was time-barred, having been registered in 2007 and revived after 13 years without any fresh evidence.

The couple successfully proved their citizenship and had their rights restored. Although the ordeal left a lasting impact, they found solace in knowing they were not alone in their struggle. On behalf of CJP team, State In-charge Nanda Ghosh and Advocate Dewan Abdur Rahim presented the order of the Foreigners Tribunal declaring the couple as Indian Citizens to them, bringing closure to the couple’s long and arduous journey. While Jamila remained silent, overcome with emotion, Sher Ali expressed his gratitude and lamented, “The pain inflicted on us by the government is unfortunate and painful.” But holding the order, Sher Ali felt a wave of relief wash over him.

The orders of the Tribunal can be read below:

Related:

Justice delayed, life denied: Rahim Ali’s citizenship vindicated posthumously

SC highlights deplorable conditions in Matia detention Centre of Assam, calls it a “sorry state of affairs”

Assam CM makes misleading statement regarding Muslim population in Assam, attracts criticism from opposition leaders

SC directs Centre to deport 17 foreigners detained in Assam Detention Centre

SC issues notice to Union and NRC Coordinator over woman declared foreigner by tribunal and halts deportation

Triumphant Win for CJP: Jamila Khatoon, Assamese Bengali Muslim, officially recognised as Indian Citizen

The post Vindicated: Sher Ali and Jamila Khatun’s Triumph over False Accusations of Foreigners, get declared Indian by Foreigners Tribunal appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“I cried alone,” Anjuma acclaimed, as the CJP Team delivered the judgement which granted her freedom from many ills, marking the end of her long and weary struggle.

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

Anjuma, also known as Anjumanara, is the granddaughter of Geda Sheikh. Despite being born in Assam, she was labelled a ‘Doubtful Voter’ (D-voter) shortly after her name was enrolled in the voter list. The reasons for the move were unclear, but the plight, trauma, and fear that resulted in the wake of this move is always evident on the faces of those affected. Why do certain names and identities receive more such ‘doubt’? Our team on grounds narrates how this is a troubling trend and concern as certain people, it seems, are put through the process due to their identity.

The 1966 voter list is a crucial document for the people of Assam, containing the names of Geda Sheikh and Ahimon Bibi from Kaimari village, Goalpara (now Dhubri) district. Dhubri, located 281 km from Guwahati, has the lowest literacy rate in Assam according to the 2011 census. Despite this, the residents are diligent in preserving their documents.

Anjuma’s father, Amzat Ali used to work tirelessly to support his family. He first voted in the Golokganj Assembly Constituency after being included in the 1989 voter list. With his hard-earned money, he married off his daughter to Matiya Rahman in the same district. “I only wanted a happy life for my daughter,” Amzat had told the CJP team during their first visit to his home.

Anjuma and her husband worked as migrant labourers in the nation’s capital, Delhi for years. They returned to Assam to vote in 2009. But to their dismay they were informed by an officer that Anjuma had been marked as a D-voter. Distressed, she returned to her father’s house, seeking answers. The family was burdened with fear and uncertainty, dreading the possibility of detention. “I cried at night alone for my younger son,” Anjuma admitted that she had greatly feared about who would care for her infant son, Farijul Islam, if she were to be imprisoned in Assam’s notorious detention camps. According to CJP’s data, this fear is legitimate as these detention camps have seen around 29 inmates die.

So, to fight for her fundamental rights, the family worked harder to save money. On October 18, 2022, they moved to a brick factory in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, to earn more. The same day she received a notice from the Agomani Border Branch police asking her to prove her citizenship. Faced with the dilemma of a contractor refusing to let them leave and the need to defend her identity, she took little Farijul and travelled back to Assam the next day.

Her father, on a bicycle, rushed to the Dhubri DVM’s house with the notice. The struggle began on October 22 when Anjuma returned home and faced a long process of gathering proper documentation, appearing before the tribunal monthly, and running from office to office for certified copies. The family compiled strong evidence linking Anjuma to her father, Amzat, and proving her marriage to Matiyar Rahman. They bravely fought against the system attempting to strip her of her citizenship. CJP’s team stood by their side, attending to every requirement, unwaveringly.

Finally, on June 26, when Advocate Ishkander Azad from CJP’s legal team handed her the judgement copy, Anjuma was overwhelmed and in tears, as CJP’s state in-charge Nanda Ghosh and Dhubri district DVM Habibul Bepari stood with her at the end of the long struggle. She spoke with a trembling voice and bright eyes and struggled to express her gratitude for CJP’s invaluable help. Her husband, Farijul, also was present shyly in the background looking overwhelmed with the happenings.

The order may be read here:

Over the years, with their extensive boots on ground approach spread over multiple, including remote, districts of Assam, CJP has helped over 51 victims of the citizenship crisis regain their citizenship.

Related:

 CJP Assam: Standing Strong Amid Citizenship Crisis and Floods

CJP Assam: Standing strong come hail, come storm

CJP Victory! After 3 years of a legal battle, freedom fighter’s daughter, Seje Bala Ghosh, is finally declared Indian

 Frequently Asked Questions: Understanding the Citizenship Crisis in Assam

Women at the Forefront of CJP’s Work in Assam

From Fear to Freedom: Sader & Molina’s Citizenship Journey in Assam

The post CJP Victory: Indian woman regains citizenship, rejoices with CJP appeared first on SabrangIndia.

How is it possible for genuine Indians to be rendered “stateless” after a “notice” with malafide facts is served on them? Visit Assam.

Sader’s father Buttu Sk was about 29-years- old during the time of National Registry of Citizens (NRC) in 1951. Buttu Sk’s name was also recorded in the 1951 NRC, he served as a Chowkidar in the Satrasal Gram Panchayat.

Today, he runs a small vegetable ‘thela’ (cart) in the weekly market to provide for the family. His son, young Ainul, works as a driver to make sure his little daughter is able to get education.  This little family has been under mental pressure and severe distress until lately due to the citizenship crisis in Assam that had plagued them for more than one year.

Sader Ali and his wife, Molina Bibi have been married for decades and now live with their son and granddaughter. Sader, who is not less than 60 years old, was forced to run to courts and procure documents despite his old age when he should be playing with his granddaughter.

Sader Ali and his son Ainul Haque run a small family of 5 members in a remote part of India which rarely people get to hear about. They reside very close to the Indo-Bangladesh International Border in a village called Ramraikuti, which is considered by many the last village of India.

Molina Bibi holing up her FT Order

On a hot summer day, a man in civil dress handed his wife four pieces of paper and told them to go to court. Sader was working on a vegetable field and was away when this happened. He rushed back to talk to the man but he could not meet him. It was the notice for being summoned to one of Assam’s dreaded Foreigners’ Tribunals.

Sader and his family belong to the “Deshi” community which is recognised as indigenous by the Assam Assembly. However, Sader found no help from official quarters in this hour of grief and despair to assist or help him. However, soon thereafter, his son, Ainul, managed to contact Team CJP for help.

It was a terrifying ordeal and the couple was traumatised. Molina was born in the state of West Bengal, and had never heard of, nor experienced, the citizenship issue that is plaguing the country. However, she had all the right documents required. She had enrolled her name as a voter in Assam as soon as she reached the legal age and never skipped an opportunity to vote. Her father, Mokbul Hussain, was a voter from the Balabhut village of West Bengal. His name was also recorded in the year of 1966 voter list.

She was married to Sader Ali and spent her life working hard with her husband to build a happy family. But this citizenship catastrophe, and the fear of detention camp, put her in deep turmoil and trauma at this stage of life.

It’s essential to note that both Sader and Molina’s father Buttu Sk and Mokbul Hussain were recorded in the voter list of 1966 from their Ramraikuti (now Ramraikuti part I) of Dhubri (then Goalpara) district of Assam, and Balabhul village of Coochbehar district of West Bengal respectively. Even Buttu Sk and his wife’s name was found in 1951 NRC and 1958 voter list. Their presence in early records clearly proves that none of them has any relation with Bangladesh.

Which brings into question the action and role of Assam Border Police, Referral Authority and Foreigner Tribunal.

Initially the reference to being a suspected foreigner was made against them in the year 2002 and the notice was served 20 years later in the year 2022. In the reference it was said in both the cases, the person illegally entered into India from village Bahalguri, Bhurungamari, and district Rangpur Country of Bangladesh after March 25, 1971 “for livelihood without any valid documents through the Jhowkuti Border of West Bengal. It also said that the couple could not produce any documents during the inquiry into their citizenship.” All these bald statements made in the reference were rank falsehoods as the case documents and trajectory thereafter, proved.

In our findings on Google Maps, it was found that Jhowkuti was very near to the victims house and Sader Ali used to set up his small vegetable stall in the market. Since Sader lives close to the Bangladesh border, his village is very close to Bahalguri in Bangladesh.

The family is on record stating that no official had even come to their place for any inquiry or investigation regarding their citizenship. In the experience of several on ground activists, working round the clock with CJP’s Team Assam, that it is a common phenomenon in every reference case that no authority ever visits the victim’s house for any kind of inquiry or investigation.

On CJP Team Assam’s first meeting with the victim’s family, the family seemed very tense, which is a normal and common reaction. To fight these cases, one has to be very strong financially as well as mentally. People generally get frustrated easily with even a single case because to search for lost documents and appear for hearing is nothing less than an extreme form of harassment.

Sader, who has two notices against his identity, did not have either, money or energy, to fight the case. Thus, Team CJP’s first job was to counsel the family and make them mentally prepared to stand up to the legal battle. While examining the documents Sader claimed in his native Deshi Goalpara dialect, “Abba ai gramote chakri korsil, mor bemar taka poisa nai, ela bole amrai bideshi! (My father was a government servant in this village. I’m suffering from illness, don’t have money, and now we are foreigners!!) Sader couldn’t hold back his tears, the agony was clear in his face but he knew no one would come forward to help them. After counselling the family, and examining the documents, the team launched the legal battle. CJP’s legal team member advocate Ishkendar Azad fought his case in the Foreigner Tribunal Nos 10 at Dhubri.

Apart from Sader, his wife Molina also had all the necessary documents. Despite this fact however, when the team first met her she was in a state of terror, lost and in a daze, not saying anything. Finally, after many reassurances, she blurted out, “Baba..mor toh ati kaio nai, mor bari Bengali..mor ki hoibe!” (Son..I don’t have anyone here, I was born in West Bengal, what will happen to me?)

The fact that Molina hails from West Bengal made it more challenging to access her documents from the government of West Bengal and also to ensure the physical presence, as witness, from among the lower bureaucracy in that state. The process meant several calls, physical visits to that state and persistence: to obtain some official’s agreement to be present as a witness before the Tribunal. Not leaving anything to chance, Team CJP did all it could to alleviate the troubles of the family.

The fact that Molina was the daughter of Mokibul Hussain, and this fact was acknowledged by the Gram Panchayat in their official certificate, ensured official “proof.”. CJP’s Team ensured, after repeated requests, that the Gram Panchayat members from West Bengal came as witnesses in Molina’s case.

Sader Ali and Molina Bibi holding up their FT Orders

It was after a prolonged legal battle, one that demanded minute diligence and persistence on the part of CJP’s legal and para legal team, within the Tribunal and on ground to access and file all documents that CJP could finally achieve a substantive victory. Sader and Molina, an elderly couple could find long-lost happiness and peace. Victory was sweet when just five days ago, on March 19, 2024, finally, on behalf of team CJP, Assam State Incharge Nanda Ghosh and DVM of Dhubri District Habibul Bepari handed over the copy of the judgement from the Tribunal, to the couple.

“A ticket to heaven!” Molina claimed while holding the judgement copy that declared her as Indian close to her chest. With the help of CJP, the family was able to rejoice in the month of Ramzan. Out of sheer reliedf and happiness, Sader arranged an Iftar for the Team CJP when he heard that he, and his wife, had both been declared as Indian.

To many this may appear as a small or ordinary celebration. In the hapless state of Assam however—where the combined troika of the Assam Border Police, the State Election Commission and the Bureaucracy, can arbitrarily –without due examine—impose statelessness, on an Indian by birth and ancestry, such a victory is profound and meaningful. Written and oral evidence before the tribunal requires a combined diligence between the legal and para legal approaches. This si what CJP’s Team Assam brings to the people in the state.

As our team was leaving her home after delivering her a copy of the March 19, 2024 judgement, Molina called out, “Don’t forget us, come often to visit. May Allah bless you all.”

Their orders may be viewed here:

Molina Bibi FT Order 24 January 2024 Sader Ali FT Order 28 December 2023

Related:

CJP Victory! After 3 years of a legal battle, freedom fighter’s daughter, Seje Bala Ghosh, is finally declared Indian

 Frequently Asked Questions: Understanding the Citizenship Crisis in Assam

Women at the Forefront of CJP’s Work in Assam

CJP moves NCM against Shiladitya Dev for targeting the ‘Miya Muslim’ community of Assam

The post A couple declared Indian again after more than a year of struggle, after CJP steps in appeared first on SabrangIndia.