On July 25, The Hindu reported that Human Rights Watch had documented expulsions being carried out without any verification of citizenship. Bangladesh’s own border guards confirmed that more than 1,500 people had been pushed out in just five weeks. The report of Deutsche Welle amplified these findings with testimonies of workers whose Aadhaar cards were torn up, who were beaten, and then forced across the border at gunpoint.

Article 14 described the atmosphere in Ahmedabad’s Chandola area, where residents say their neighbours vanish overnight. As one woman put it: “They’re taken, and we don’t even get to see them again.”

The Courts: Cautious but engaged

For weeks, the deportations took place largely outside the gaze of the judiciary. That shifted in August.

On August 14, LiveLaw reported that the Supreme Court had issued notice to the Union government and nine states on a petition filed by the West Bengal Migrant Workers’ Welfare Board. The Board alleged that under a May directive of the Ministry of Home Affairs, arbitrary deportations were being carried out by multiple state police forces, targeting Bengali-speaking workers.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi pressed the Centre to respond. While the Solicitor General denied any targeting based on language, the Court reminded him that “action cannot be on the basis of language.” The bench stopped short of granting interim relief, but hinted at the need for a central coordination mechanism.

Meanwhile, the Calcutta High Court has taken a more pointed approach. On July 17, Scroll reported that the Court had sought answers about the case of Sunali Bibi, allegedly deported from Delhi while eight months pregnant. The petition was filed by her family, who say she was detained in Delhi despite showing Aadhaar and other documents.

According to the report of Madhyamam, it was revealed that the Delhi FRRO had issued an order on June 24 and executed it two days later. Delhi Police maintained that due process was followed. The Calcutta High Court, however, has asked the Union to explain why deportations suddenly escalated in June. The case is listed for hearing on August 20.

States push ahead

Even as courts are probing these deportations, state governments are moving aggressively.

• Maharashtra: On August 8, the Indian Express reported that Mumbai Police deported 112 people in a single operation using an Indian Air Force aircraft to the Assam–Bangladesh border. This brought the 2025 tally in Mumbai to 719 deportations — a staggering jump from 152 in all of 2024. Officials said they relied on call records, bank transactions, and site visits to identify foreigners. But the same report showed troubling patterns: entire families being targeted, and mothers with minor children deported without clarity about the children’s citizenship.
• Tamil Nadu: On August 12, the New Indian Express reported that the Attur district jail in Salem has been designated as a special camp for nearly 200 Bangladeshi nationals awaiting deportation. With existing camps overcrowded, Tamil Nadu’s move reflects how states are formalising and expanding detention infrastructure for cross-border removals.
• West Bengal: By contrast, West Bengal is resisting. On June 17, The Telegraph reported that three of five workers who had been pushed into Bangladesh were repatriated after the state government pressed the BSF to raise the matter with its Bangladeshi counterparts. Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has publicly accused BJP-ruled states of using deportations to harass Bengali-speaking Indians. On July 19, The Hindu reported her charge that this is part of a political campaign. That same day, The Hindu carried the testimony of Sweety Bibi, who said she and her family were picked up in Delhi’s Rohini area and deported despite holding Aadhaar cards.

Anatomy of a “push-out”

What distinguishes these deportations is their method. Reports by Citizens for Justice and Peace have previously detailed how people are detained in distant cities, transported under guard to Assam, and then forced across informal stretches of the border by the BSF — sometimes through river channels. There are no FIRs, no magistrates, and no tribunal hearings. Families are often not informed, and the individuals vanish from Indian legal records.

As The Indian Express explained, the Foreigners Act, 1946, places the burden on individuals to prove citizenship, but it still mandates a legal process — notice, inquiry, and tribunal adjudication. Many have argued that skipping these steps transforms deportations into unlawful expulsions.

The human cost

Behind the legal arguments are human tragedies. Deutsche Welle carried accounts of men in Mumbai who were beaten, stripped of their IDs, and loaded onto buses for Assam. In Delhi, the case of Sunali Bibi raises urgent questions about the rights of her unborn child if she gives birth in Bangladesh.

In Ahmedabad, Article 14 reported that residents of Chandola — branded as “Bangladeshis” after a demolition drive — have been cut off from rentals, water supply, and even schools for their children. Fear of deportation now pervades everyday life.

The emotional fallout can be as devastating as the legal consequences. In a deeply tragic case documented by India Today, The Indian Express, NDTV, and The Telegraph, a 63-year-old Kolkata man named Dilip Kumar Saha—who had lived in the city since 1972 after migrating from Dhaka—died by suicide amid intense fear over being targeted by the proposed NRC. His family said that even though he possessed valid voter ID and other documentation, he was increasingly anxious about the possibility of being detained or “pushed out” to Bangladesh. No explicit mention of NRC appeared in his note, but his wife and local politicians blamed the atmosphere of uncertainty for driving him to depression

The bottom line

India is in the middle of a deportation surge unlike anything seen in decades. State governments like Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu are expanding infrastructure and accelerating deportations; West Bengal is contesting them and even securing the return of deported workers. The Supreme Court and High Courts are beginning to engage but have yet to halt the practice.

As documented across multiple media reports as well as the ground reports of CJP, what unites these cases is a disturbing absence of due process. Citizens and migrants alike are being swept up, disappeared across the border, and left to fight for recognition.

The months ahead will show whether India’s judiciary reasserts constitutional safeguards — or whether the “push-out” becomes an entrenched, silent feature of governance at the border.

Related:

India’s New Immigration Order 2025: Consolidation or continuity of exclusion?

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

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

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

The post India’s Silent Push-Out: Courts, states, and the deportation of Bengali-Speaking Muslims appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Taking to X, CM Sarma wrote “Now playing on illegal infiltrators playlist

Assam Police take me home, to the place I belong..

33 new infiltrators have been PUSHED BACK to where they belong — Bangladesh.

BEWARE: Our stringent efforts continue and will further intensify in the coming days.”

Now playing on illegal infiltrators playlist

Assam Police take me home, to the place I belong..

33 new infiltrators have been PUSHED BACK to where they belong — Bangladesh.

BEWARE: Our stringent efforts continue and will further intensify in the coming days. pic.twitter.com/7e99AuGD5X

— Himanta Biswa Sarma (@himantabiswa) August 30, 2025

This official acknowledgement marks another significant escalation. In May 2025, civil society groups had already documented attempted and unlawful pushbacks of Bengali-speaking Muslim women from Assam, several of whom were subsequently rescued and brought back after widespread outcry. Now, CM Sarma has warned that the crackdown would only intensify. It is crucial to note that CM Sarma did not specify the exact entry point for this latest batch.

Showing Adarniya Shri @AmitShah ji the firm progress we have made in evicting illegal settlers from Assam’s lands. pic.twitter.com/hhcgNAyZa9

— Himanta Biswa Sarma (@himantabiswa) August 30, 2025

As per The Assam Tribune. Law enforcement claims a steady weekly removal of 70 to 100 individuals, enforced by Assam Police and BSF, now on heightened alert across the 1,885 km border with Bangladesh.

Due process bypassed

Revived from dormancy, the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 grants district commissioners the authority to expel individuals entering after March 24, 1971, without tribunal intervention. This draconian tool bypasses due legal process, enabling swift deportations both of long-resident undocumented immigrants and fresh entrants

Since mid-2025, Assam has reported weekly pushbacks ranging between 70 to 100 individuals—a ramped-up, relentless enforcement effort. Surveillance along the 1,885 km Indo–Bangladesh border has been beefed up by the Assam Police and BSF, particularly in historically vulnerable stretches.

Notable, as per Times of India, on multiple occasions, Dhaka has publicly denied accepting individuals pushed across the border by Indian authorities, insisting that only documented Bangladeshi citizens with verified proof can be received. In this context, the Assam government’s claim of pushing back “33 infiltrators” raises unresolved questions: Who verified their nationality? On what legal basis were they expelled? Were Bangladeshi authorities even informed?

Under Indian law, Foreigners Tribunals are the only quasi-judicial bodies authorised to determine questions of citizenship and foreigner status. Deportation requires central government sanction, diplomatic coordination, and formal handover to the other state. By contrast, “pushbacks” involve physically expelling people across the border without judicial or diplomatic procedure. Such actions therefore bypass both due process and constitutional safeguards, undermining the principle of rule of law.

Political messaging vs constitutional duty

Arguments have been raised against Assam government’s repeated claims of “success” in pushing back alleged infiltrators serve a political narrative rather than a legal process. Branding individuals as “illegal foreigners” without tribunal adjudication or central authorisation weaponises citizenship disputes, heightening insecurity among minority communities. This approach stands in sharp contrast to India’s constitutional guarantee of equality before law and due process, as well as its obligations under international human rights law prohibiting arbitrary expulsion.

Yet, legal resistance is growing. Habeas corpus petitions in Gauhati High Court and the Supreme Court challenge the constitutionality of such pushbacks. Families of deportees allege disappearances and forcible handovers without documentation, raising fears of statelessness.

Meanwhile, according to a report of Times of India, opposition leader Debabrata Saikia has called on the Union government to review BSF’s monitoring framework, warning of diplomatic tensions with Dhaka if India persists with unilateral expulsions.

Ultimately, while Sarma’s expulsions play well as a populist performance of strength, they expose deep fractures in Assam’s legal regime—trading due process for political spectacle, and risking human rights violations in the name of security.

Related:

Not a Foreigner! Foreigners’ Tribunal declares Sukumar Baishya Indian citizen

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

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

The post Concerns rise along Assam’s escalating pushbacks, 33 additional alleged Bangladeshis “pushed back” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background: A case of vanishing in plain sight

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

Constitutional Stakes: Is the State Above Its Own Procedure?

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

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

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

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

Details of the previous hearings may be read here.

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background: A trail of changing claims

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

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

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

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

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

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

Details of the previous hearings may be read here.

Hearing of July 18: The ‘wrong Doyjan’?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sharp legal and ethical questions

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

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

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

The order may be read here:

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judicial Firewall: Calcutta High Court sounds the Constitutional alarm

On July 17, 2025, the Calcutta High Court issued a pointed rebuke to the Union government and state authorities over the sudden and widespread raids conducted in June to identify so-called “illegal Bangladeshis.” As per the report of Times of India, a division bench of Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Reetobroto Kumar Mitra posed blunt questions: “What were the reasons for these sudden nationwide raids? Were they pre-planned? On what intelligence were they based?” The Court, hearing habeas corpus petitions concerning the alleged illegal detention and deportation of Bengali-speaking migrants, including a family of three from Birbhum allegedly pushed into Bangladesh, emphasised that such actions, if based solely on language or appearance, risk sending a “wrong and dangerous message.”

The Court directed the West Bengal government, the Delhi Police, and the Union government to file detailed affidavits regarding the legality of the detentions and deportations. As per the report of LiveLaw, State counsel Kalyan Bandopadhyay submitted that it was outrageous to detain or deport any individual solely because they spoke Bengali. “The constable is not the competent authority. You cannot criminalize language. There is a procedure, a legal standard, that must be met to question someone’s citizenship,” he said, demanding data on the number of detainees and those deported.

In response, senior Union government counsel Asoke Kumar Chakraborty questioned whether habeas corpus petitions were maintainable after deportation, revealing that a parallel case had been filed in the Delhi High Court—information which the Calcutta HC had not been told earlier. The Court came down harshly on the petitioners’ lawyer for this procedural suppression. “This is not expected from a senior advocate. Do not try to play tricks with the court,” Justice Chakraborty warned according to the LiveLaw report. Yet, despite these procedural hiccups, the Court refused to dismiss the matter and insisted on detailed disclosures, recognizing the larger human rights issues at stake.

Odisha: Mass detentions, arbitrary identification, and partial relief

The largest cluster of arrests took place in Odisha, where between June and July 2025, 447 Bengali-speaking migrant workers, most of them masons, daily-wage labourers, or street vendors from districts such as Birbhum, Murshidabad, and South 24 Parganas, were rounded up by police, particularly in Jharsuguda, Khurda, and nearby districts. According to a Scroll report, at least 403 detainees have since been released after sustained legal, political, and administrative pressure—but dozens remain in custody, often on specious grounds.

Multiple detainees testified that police refused to accept Aadhaar, voter ID, or even ration cards as legitimate identification. Instead, they were asked to produce birth and school certificates, often impossible for migrant workers who left their villages as teenagers. Others were detained simply for having Bangladeshi phone numbers saved on their mobile phones, which the police used as an alleged indicator of foreign nationality.

As provided in the TOI report, Ajimuddin Sheikh, 22, from Birbhum, was one such migrant detained during a 1 a.m. police raid near Brajarajnagar. “They seized our phones. Even when we showed voter ID and Aadhaar, they said it was not enough,” he recounted, while speaking to the TOI. His 18-year-old cousin, Nijamuddin Sheikh, added that they were interrogated repeatedly, their phones scanned for Bangladeshi contacts, and only released after producing additional documentation and being vouched for by a local guarantor.

Trinamool MP Samirul Islam, who chairs the West Bengal Migrant Workers Welfare Board, confirmed that most of those detained had been working in Odisha legally for several years. He lambasted the Odisha Police for refusing to accept Indian documents and treating labourers like foreign infiltrators. “There is no law that says a Bengali-speaking labourer cannot work in another Indian state,” he said, as per The Indian Express.

Despite some relief after the High Court sought explanations, Islam and MP Mahua Moitra warned that the mass profiling of Bengali-speaking workers is far from over—and that several youth still remain in custody.

Chhattisgarh: From detention to forced repatriation

In Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, nine Bengali-speaking masons, residents of Krishnanagar in West Bengal, were picked up on July 12 from a school construction site, The Hindu reported. Trinamool MP Mahua Moitra revealed that despite possessing valid documents and being recruited through a verified contractor, the men were detained, denied contact with their families, and allegedly put on buses and sent back to Bengal—without any court order authorizing their removal, reported by TOI.

The Chhattisgarh Police claimed that the men failed to register with local authorities and were detained under preventive sections of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), India’s new criminal procedure code. However, according to IE, Moitra questioned why they were not given access to legal counsel, why their phones were confiscated, and why families were not informed. A habeas corpus petition has now been filed in the Chhattisgarh High Court.

Maharashtra: Matua community targeted, identity cards ignored

In Pune, members of the Matua community, a Dalit religious minority of Bengali origin, were detained by Maharashtra Police on suspicions of being undocumented migrants, according to TOI. Samirul Islam reported that despite furnishing Aadhaar, voter ID, and certificates from the All India Matua Mahasangha, detainees were not released.

Shockingly, even children were among those picked up, and police reportedly refused to recognize documents issued by the AIMM, as per the report. TMC leaders expressed dismay that Santanu Thakur, a BJP MP and Union Minister who himself belongs to the Matua community, remained silent in the face of persecution of his own constituents.

Delhi and Gurugram: Crackdown in the capital

In Delhi, as reported by India Today, the TMC has led a series of protests in Jai Hind Colony, Vasant Kunj, a settlement housing hundreds of Bengali-speaking migrant workers. Despite valid documentation, residents say they have been targeted with evictions, electricity and water cutoffs, and routine harassment by police.

Meanwhile, in Gurugram, at least 26 Bengali-speaking workers from Assam were detained and interrogated over two days. Though eventually released, they alleged that voter ID and Aadhaar cards were rejected and that Muslim workers were disproportionately targeted.

Forced pushbacks and international law violations

Civil rights groups and legal experts have expressed alarm at what appears to be a coordinated “pushback” policy being implemented quietly across multiple states, allegedly under a Union-led directive. According to investigative reports, more than 2,000 persons have been forced across the Indo-Bangladesh border since the initiation of “Operation Sindoor”, which was a military operation ostensibly targeting cross-border terror camps but now being linked to mass civilian expulsions.

These deportations, without legal adjudication, without access to lawyers or courts, and based on profiling, stand in clear violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and India’s obligations under international human rights law, particularly the principle of non-refoulement.

West Bengal Pushes Back: Legal action, street protests, and a linguistic defiance campaign

The West Bengal government, led by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, has mounted one of the strongest political and legal responses yet to the ongoing crackdown on Bengali-speaking migrants across BJP-ruled states. Calling it a “coordinated campaign to erase Bengali identity from the Indian Union,” Banerjee’s administration has launched a multi-pronged resistance: taking the fight to the courts, to Parliament, to civil society, and most strikingly, to the streets.

1. Legal interventions and habeas petitions

West Bengal’s legal machinery was among the first to intervene after news broke in late May and June that Indian citizens, including women and minors, had allegedly been pushed across the Indo-Bangladesh border by Assam and Maharashtra Police.

According to The Telegraph, Maktoob, and Indian Express, the State of West Bengal has taken a proactive legal and administrative stance in ongoing cases concerning the wrongful detention and deportation of Bengali-speaking migrants. It has challenged detentions and deportations carried out without Foreigners Tribunal orders or judicial oversight, particularly in cases where individuals possessed valid Indian documents. The Calcutta High Court has repeatedly flagged these incidents as potentially illegal and directed the State to respond. In compliance, the West Bengal government has dispatched state police and administrative teams to states such as Odisha and Maharashtra to trace missing persons, facilitate their release, and assist with documentation, including the recording of victim testimonies. The State has also filed multiple status reports before the Calcutta High Court, detailing repatriation efforts and procedural violations. Acting on judicial direction, the Chief Secretary has appointed a nodal officer to liaise with the governments of other states and the Union Ministry of Home Affairs to ensure coordinated response mechanisms and prevent further unlawful detentions.

2. Political Leadership: Mamata’s “I will speak more in Bengali” challenge

Mamata Banerjee has not only condemned the raids as unconstitutional but also reframed the issue as a battle for linguistic dignity. On July 16, during a mass rally in central Kolkata, she declared: “I dare you to send me to a detention camp, I will speak more in Bengali,” and “Altogether 1,000 migrant workers have been arrested and detained in BJP-ruled states and many have been pushed back to Bangladesh. People from Birbhum, Cooch Behar, Nadia and other districts are being detained in Odisha and BJP-ruled states,” she said, according to the Economic Times.

Addressing a massive public gathering during the protest march, as reported by Hindustan Times, Mamata Banerjee said, “The BJP calls all Bengali-speaking people Bangladeshi Rohingyas… Rohingyas live in Myanmar. Here, all citizens of West Bengal have proper ID cards and identification. The labourers who have gone outside Bengal have not gone on their own. They have been employed because they have skills… Anyone who speaks Bengali is being arrested and put behind bars. Why? Is West Bengal not a part of India?”

3. Administrative support for victims and families

The West Bengal government has taken several concrete steps to support affected families and challenge interstate detentions:

• Interstate coordination mandated by Court: On direction from the Calcutta High Court, the West Bengal Chief Secretary has appointed a nodal officer to liaise with states like Odisha and Delhi, ensuring the identification and release of Bengali-speaking migrants detained without due process, according to LiveLaw.
• Chief Secretary’s objection to profiling: Chief Secretary Manoj Pant sent a formal letter to the Odisha government objecting to the detention of migrants who had valid Indian documents and condemning demands for ancestral land records as arbitrary and discriminatory, as per Indian Express.
• Verification of migrants across states: Bengal Police has undertaken a large-scale verification drive across multiple states, including Odisha, Maharashtra, and Delhi, covering over 750 cases of suspected wrongful detention. Officials have relied on a mix of local documentation (e.g., ration cards, land deeds, school certificates) to authenticate identity, according to the reports of TOI.
• Interstate legal cell under consideration: According to government officials cited in press briefings, the Home Department may establish a dedicated interstate legal response cell to track migrant-related detentions, deportations, and facilitate legal aid across borders, as provided by New Indian Express.

4. National advocacy

Senior Congress leader Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury submitted a memorandum to President Droupadi Murmu, demanding her intervention in the said situation. In the said memorandum, as reported by IE, the former Congress MP wrote: “It’s very sad and cruel fact that Bengali-speaking daily wage labourers, who are bonafide Indian citizens, are being targeted due to their physical appearance and accent, which is being mistaken for that of Bangladeshis. This similarity is being used as a pretext to harass, humiliate, physically assault, and hold these innocent people in detention.”

Chowdhury emphasised that these labourers are not only Indian citizens, but also contributors to the national economy. “Now, they are being rendered unemployed, homeless, and stateless,” he said, urging the President to step in to protect citizens from communal profiling and unlawful deportations.

Conclusion: Language on trial, citizenship in crisis

The targeting of Bengali-speaking migrants across Indian states has transformed from isolated administrative excesses into a full-blown constitutional crisis. At its core, this moment tests the strength of India’s federal framework, the sanctity of citizenship, and the basic right to dignity regardless of region, religion, or language. When Indian citizens with valid documents are detained, deported, or denied recognition simply for speaking Bengali, it sets a dangerous precedent—not just for Bengalis, but for all linguistic and regional minorities.

The pushback from the Calcutta High Court, the West Bengal government, and sections of civil society has sparked a vital resistance against arbitrary profiling and extra-legal state action. Yet the broader question remains: will the Union government address the growing pattern of exclusionary policies, or allow language and identity to become fault lines for discrimination?

India was envisioned as a pluralistic democracy where diversity is a foundation, not a fault. The events unfolding today demand urgent legal, political, and moral clarity. The road ahead will determine whether that vision endures—or whether silence enables a slow erosion of constitutional protections, starting with those who speak Bengali.

Related:

Gauhati HC closes Bakkar Ali writ petition as missing detainee Samsul Ali is found, not rearrested

‘Define Special Intensive Revision scope… make it clear not linked to citizenship’: BJP ally TDP writes to CEC Gyanesh Kumar

Bengali Migrant Workers Detained in Odisha: Calcutta High Court demands answers, seeks coordination between states

Bengali-Speaking Migrants Detained En Masse in Odisha: National security or targeted persecution?

Bordering on illegality? 18 alleged Bangladeshis “pushed back” without due process, Legal challenge filed in High Court

SC: ECI’s ‘wisdom’ on revision of electoral rolls challenged, does a disenfranchisement crisis loom over Bihar, with thousands being declared ‘‘D’ (doubtful) voters?

The post Under Siege for Speaking Bengali: Detentions, deportations and a rising pushback against the targeting of Bengali migrant workers across India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

At the hearing on July 16, 2025, the Gauhati High Court has formally closed the writ petition filed by Bakkar Ali concerning the disappearance and feared deportation of his father, Samsul Ali, after the Court was informed that the detained person had been recovered in an unconscious state in Bijni, had not been rearrested, and had been produced before police authorities, albeit informally.

At the hearing, counsel for the petitioner submitted that on July 10, 2025, in compliance with earlier court directions, Samsul Ali had been taken to the office of the SP (Border), Chirang. However, the SP was not present at the time, and hence his appearance was not formally recorded. The counsel further submitted that since then, Samsul Ali has been undergoing medical treatment and continues to remain out of custody.

Recording these submissions, the Bench comprising Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Susmita Phukan Khaund held that the apprehension of deportation no longer survives, particularly as no fresh action had been taken by the State to detain or remove Samsul Ali after his recovery.

Counsel’s submissions

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta submitted that Samsul Ali was produced before the Superintendent of Police (Border), Chirang on July 10, 2025, in compliance with this Court’s earlier order. However, the SP was not present at the time, and as a result, no formal documentation or endorsement of his appearance could be made.

The counsel further submitted that since that date, Samsul Ali has been undergoing medical treatment, and no steps have been taken by the State to re-detain him or initiate any deportation proceedings.

Court’s observations and order

The Bench recorded that “Samsul Ali was found unconscious in Bijni. It has been submitted that the father of the petitioner was produced before the authorities but his presence was not marked because the SP (border), Chirang, was not there. Since then, the father of the petitioner is undergoing some treatment.”

The Court noted that given Samsul Ali’s recovery, the absence of any further custodial action, and the production before the competent authority, the apprehension of deportation no longer survived. The order stated: “Considering that the father of the petitioner has been recovered and not taken into custody, the apprehension of his deportation would also not survive.”

Accordingly, the writ petition was closed. However, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court again if any future grievance or action arises from the State.

Background of the case

The habeas petition was filed following the disappearance of Samsul Ali on the night of May 25, 2025, from his home in Chatiborgaon village, Chirang district. The family claimed he was picked up by local police without arrest memo, warrant, or magistrate production.

Samsul Ali had earlier been declared a foreigner by a Foreigners Tribunal, but was released on bail in 2019 under the Supreme Court’s suo moto COVID-era order (WP(C) No. 1 of 2020), having completed over three years in detention. He had been regularly complying with the condition of weekly reporting to the local police station. His last recorded attendance was on May 21, 2025.

The first hearing took place on June 6, when the Court issued notice and directed the State to disclose the whereabouts of the petitioner’s father. In the June 10 hearing, the FT counsel informed the Court that Samsul Ali had been handed over to the BSF Sector Headquarters, Panbari on May 26. However, the Court expressed concern over the lack of any formal memo or details of the post from where he was allegedly transferred and directed the SP (Border), Chirang to confirm particulars.

At the June 20 hearing, the petitioner informed the Court that Samsul Ali had been found unconscious in Bijni and brought home by local residents. The Court, acknowledging this, directed that Samsul be produced before the SP (Border), Chirang, and stressed that if any deportation was contemplated, due process must be followed.

Legal significance and closure

The present petition is one of several habeas petitions filed in the aftermath of re-detentions and disappearances of individuals previously released on long-standing COVID-era bail. These cases have raised legal concerns about re-arrest without bail cancellation, absence of arrest documentation, and potential deportations carried out without judicial oversight.

By recording that Samsul Ali is no longer in custody, that he has been produced before the appropriate authority, and that he is currently undergoing treatment, the Court held that the basis of the plea no longer survives. However, the grant of liberty to the petitioner to move the Court again ensures that judicial oversight remains available in case of any future illegality.

The petition now stands formally closed.

Details of the background and legal proceedings may be read here.

The order may be read here:

Update on Related Petitions: State files affidavit in Abdul Sheikh and Majibur Rehman cases, next hearing on July 23

In related petitions also heard on July 16, the Gauhati High Court continued proceedings in the cases of Abdul Sheikh (Sanidul Sheikh v. Union of India) and Majibur Rehman (Reijya Khatun v. Union of India), both of whom had been re-detained in May 2025 despite being out on long-standing bail granted under Supreme Court directions during the COVID period. In both cases, the detenues were previously declared foreigners, had completed over two years in detention, and were released under judicially monitored bail in 2021 and 2022, respectively. They had been regularly reporting to their local police stations in compliance with the conditions of their release.

On July 16, the State filed its affidavits in opposition, which were served to the counsel for the petitioners that morning. These affidavits are expected to set out the State’s legal basis for re-detention without first cancelling the bail orders. The petitioners are likely to respond to the new affidavits. The matters have been listed for further hearing on July 23, 2025.

It is essential to note that on the last day of hearing in both the cases, the State was directed to file a detailed affidavit laying out its legal position. The Court had specified that the affidavit must be served at least six days before the next hearing to give the petitioner time to reply. However, the same, as evident from the present proceedings, did not happen.

Details of the background and legal proceedings may be read here.

Related:

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

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

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

The post Gauhati HC closes Bakkar Ali writ petition as missing detainee Samsul Ali is found, not rearrested appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Oh look who’s going back to their home?

In Assam, we welcome guests with open arms but those trying to illegally prolong their stay are treated with the special gesture of PUSHBACK.

18 illegal Bangladeshis pushed back today in wee hours from Cachar and Sribhumi. pic.twitter.com/9U9fZobTNL

— Himanta Biswa Sarma (@himantabiswa) July 5, 2025

In his social media post, Sarma reiterated the state’s position: while Assam welcomes guests, illegal residents would not be permitted to stay. The early-morning operation, executed by Assam Police, was part of an intensified campaign against undocumented immigrants, with Sarma stating that nearly 330 such individuals have been expelled from the state in the past month alone.

For far too long have illegal infiltrators gone scot free.

WE ARE TOLERATING IT NO MORE.

We have begun intensified operations against illegal infiltrators and in the last 1 month, in Cachar district alone, we have pushed back 88 Bangladeshis and Rohingyas back to Bangladesh. pic.twitter.com/e7fDcWLLk8

— Himanta Biswa Sarma (@himantabiswa) June 25, 2025

Security officials, however, have raised red flags. As per India Today NE, it has been reported that many individuals deported under this policy managed to return shortly after being expelled, some allegedly through porous borders in Meghalaya. Several were reportedly refused entry by the Border Guards Bangladesh (BGB), particularly those identified as Muslims, due to lack of coordination or documentation.

These individuals are believed to have been pushed into no man’s land by the Border Security Force (BSF), often during night hours, without proper documentation or adjudication through Foreigners Tribunals, raising serious concerns about violation of national and international legal norms.

July 7: CM Sarma Defends Crackdown, Announces Expansion of Eviction Drive

Speaking to reporters in Kokrajhar on July 7, Sarma defended the state’s actions and promised to expand the eviction campaign. He alleged that individuals from areas such as Karimganj, Dhubri, Chappar, and Silchar had begun settling in Lakhimpur, leading to their eviction to “protect the land rights of the indigenous people.”

“If anyone has a problem with the removal of 350 illegal Bangladeshis, they will have to bear it. Many people have been martyred in the fight to drive Bangladeshis out,” said Sarma, according to the report of India Today NE.

The Chief Minister further stated that the campaign would not be halted due to political criticism. “Now they [opposition parties] are doing politics in the name of this girl to provide security to Bangladeshis,” he added, as reported by India Today NE, alleging that the real intent was to sabotage the BJP-led government’s campaign.

Sarma also announced that evictions would soon be carried out in Chappar, Dhubri, and Bodoland, stating, “No outsider should be allowed to enter Bodoland”.

PIL in Gauhati High Court: Pushback policy challenged as unconstitutional

These aggressive deportation measures have now come under judicial scrutiny. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the All BTC Minority Students Association in the Gauhati High Court alleges that the Assam government’s “push-back policy” is being implemented arbitrarily and in violation of Articles 14, 21, and 22 of the Constitution.

According to the report of LiveLaw, when the matter came up on June 27, a division bench comprising Justices Manish Choudhury and Mitali Thakuria was informed that several individuals had been detained and pushed back without any formal process. The petitioner’s counsel said he had collected the particulars of such individuals, whose whereabouts remain unknown after being picked up by the police.

According to the LiveLAw report, the PIL stated that “Deportation without notice, adjudication or opportunity to appeal constitutes a grave violation of constitutional due process… The State of Assam has undertaken an arbitrary policy of ‘push back’, which is bereft of the principles of natural justice.”

The matter is next listed for July 22, 2025. The petitioners had earlier moved the Supreme Court, but withdrew their plea after the Court expressed its inclination to dismiss it, opting instead to approach the High Court.

What does the petition entail?

1. No Tribunal Orders, No Deportation Proceedings: Violations of Foreigners Act alleged by petitioners

The plea highlights that the pushbacks are being carried out without any judicial declaration from the Foreigners Tribunals, as required under the Foreigners Act, 1946. It argues that such practices lack legal backing and amount to arbitrary and extrajudicial expulsions.

It also refers to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005), where the Court underscored the necessity of following due process in identifying and deporting foreign nationals, warning against wrongful deprivation of citizenship, particularly for vulnerable populations.

As per a report in Bar&Bench, the PIL also challenges the state’s interpretation of the Rajubala Das v. Union of India judgment dated February 4, 2025, which directed deportation of only 63 specific individuals with verified foreign nationalities. The petition contends that the state has wrongly used this order as a blanket licence to detain and push back many more without following legal procedures.

2. Pattern of Abuse: Allegations of Muslim profiling and secret detentions

According to the petition and supporting media reports, more than 50 individuals have been picked up from different districts and transferred to the Matia Detention Centre in Goalpara. These individuals were later handed over to BSF and allegedly expelled at night, without access to lawyers or family. The PIL also refers to the case of a government school teacher who was deported, indicating a pattern of wrongful identification and profiling.

The petition emphasises that once a person has entered Indian territory, pushbacks without a tribunal order or civil authority clearance are illegal under both domestic and international law, including Article 33 of the 1951 Refugee Convention, which India, though not a signatory, is bound to uphold in spirit as part of its constitutional commitment to human rights.

Aadhaar Under Watch: Assam moves to limit access for ‘fresh entrants’

In a related policy development, the Assam Cabinet is considering restricting Aadhaar card issuance. On July 5, Sarma announced that the government may introduce a law empowering only District Commissioners to approve Aadhaar applications for individuals over 18. He claimed that most adults already have Aadhaar, and limiting new issuances would prevent alleged illegal immigrants from gaining documentation.

“Fresh people coming from Bangladesh will not be able to take them,” Sarma said, as provided in the report of The Hindu, adding that the move would serve as an administrative filter against infiltration.

Experts, however, have warned that such restrictions could result in exclusion of genuine Indian citizens, particularly the poor, marginalised, and illiterate, many of whom struggle to prove documentation under existing mechanisms like the NRC or Aadhaar enrolment.

Assam’s aggressive deportation campaign, framed by the state as a defence of indigenous identity, is fast becoming a legal and human rights crisis. The ongoing PIL, multiple media exposés, and testimonies from affected communities point to a systematic subversion of constitutional protections and established legal processes.

Related:

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

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

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

The post Bordering on illegality? 18 alleged Bangladeshis “pushed back” without due process, Legal challenge filed in High Court appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Since May 23, 2025 individuals declared to be Foreigners (Bangladeshi) (DFN) by the Foreigners Tribunals (FT), which are quasi-judicial bodies tasked with citizenship determination in Assam, have been arrested without any stated cause or any prior intimation and some of these individuals were pushed back into Bangladesh. This push back can more appropriately be defined as push out, as, none of the standard operating procedures related to deportation, like nationality status verification, had been carried out before these individuals were pushed out to Bangladeshi territory. Under these circumstances there was no obligation on part of Bangladesh to accept these people and resultantly these individuals were confined to the no man’s land between the two nations. This resulted in an absurd situation where individuals who had been arrested and pushed out have been, latter, found in Indian Territory. In one such case, Bakkar Ali vs. Union of India (UOI),  the Guwahati High Court (GHC) clearly stated that if the individual is again apprehended and sought to be deported, the proper procedure (is to) be followed in the process.

Few of the individuals who were pushed out had cases pending in the GHC and the Supreme Court (SC). Few of these individuals, according to the Chief Minister of Assam, were brought back through diplomatic dialogues with Bangladesh. Even more alarmingly, most of the individuals arrested and pushed out under this operation, had already been granted conditional bail by the Supreme Court orders dated May, 10, 2019 in WP(C) 1045/2018 -Supreme Court Legal Services Committee Vs. The Union of India and Ors and on April 15, 2020 passed in WP(C) (Suo Motu) 1/ 2020 during the Covid-19 pandemic. These orders granted conditional bail to DFNs who had spent more than either three or two years in detention centres. The government had not made any application or prayer, either in the GHC or the SC, relating to the cancellation of the bail granted. This was flagged by Justice Kalyan Rai Surana, speaking for the division bench comprising Justice Malsari Nandi during the hearing in the Sanidul Sheikh vs. UOI case, who stated:

‘You have not prayed before the court to recall all those orders granting bail. Once they are on bail, you will have to follow due process in order to take them into custody again. So somebody must have been overlooking this. Nobody thought that the order of a court needed to be cancelled or recalled before arresting them’.              

This observation by the division bench of Guwahati High Court clearly exposes the arbitrary and illegal nature of these arrests/detentions. At this point it is abundantly clear that the government can neither justify the arbitrary arrest of these individuals, as seen in Sanidul Sheikh vs. UOI, nor can they justify the practice of push back, as seen in Bakkar Ali vs. UOI. Hence the actions of the Assam government in since May 23, clearly appear to be entirely unjustified and were carried out in disregard to the due process. Detailed coverage of recent proceedings in the Gauhati High Court may be read here.

2) Deportation not ‘Push-Back’

Despite these visible procedural lapses in the arrest, detention and push back of DFNs, the   Chief Minister, Himanta Biswas Sarma has strongly defended the actions of his government in his speech during the special session of the Assam legislative assembly held on June 9, 2025. These justifications were based on his interpretation of judgements/orders given by the Supreme Court. The first court directive, cited by the Chief Minister, was made through a (misreading) of the orders passed in the Rajubal Das vs. UOI case. Sarma stated: ‘There is pressure on the state government from the Supreme Court also to act on expulsion of foreigners.”

While this statement is technically true, it also important that look into the orders passed by the court in the Rajubala Das case.  In this case, the apex court criticised the central and Assam government’s inability to deport individuals declared to be foreigners. The court especially criticised the government for not deporting four individuals who had been held in detention centres for more than three years. This not only violated the Supreme Court orders referred to earlier, but also violated article 21 of the Indian constitution which protects the live and liberty of an individual from arbitrary state action. Similarly the court was also unhappy with delay in Nationality Status Verification of the detainees, as this is an essential step in the process of deportation. Hence, the court directed both the Assam and the central governments to speed up the process of nationality status verification so that these individuals could be deported. The court did not, in any way, ask the Assam government to push individuals into Bangladesh without nationality status verification, as any action like this would itself be a violation of article 21 as it would endanger the lives of the individuals being pushed back. Hence the Chief Minister’s justification of his government’s actions is based on a very narrow reading of the court’s orders. A detailed analysis of the orders in the Rajubala case undertaken by Citizens for Justice and Peace, may be read here.

3) Misreading the 6a Judgement

The Chief Minister also cited the judgement given by the Supreme Court’s constitutional bench on the constitutional validity of section 6a of the Citizenship Act (1955). He stated:

The section 6a verdict affirms that the Immigrant (Expulsion from Assam) Act (1950) (IEAA) remains valid and operative. This means that to expel foreigners the government need not go to the tribunals. The 1950 act says that if the DC (Deputy Commissioner) prima facie thinks someone is a foreigner, they can be evicted from the state of Assam’

Based on this, he surmised: ‘Now that the state is empowered to evict people under the Immigrant (Expulsion from Assam) Act (1950), hence push back is normal’

While it is true that the IEAA allows the government to order the expulsion of certain immigrants from Assam and it is similarly true that the Supreme Court affirmed the validity of the IEAA, the claims made by the Chief Minister are, fortunately, unjustified. To better understand the role of IEAA within the broader field of citizenship determination in Assam one needs to refer to the relevant paragraphs of the constitutional bench’s majority judgement, i.e. 368- 382. Within these paragraphs it becomes apparent that the petitioners had contended that IEAA, being an enactment specific to the immigrants in Assam, should apply to the exclusion of the Foreigners Act (1946). In essence, the contention of the petitioners was that only the provisions of the IEAA should apply to Assam, overriding the Foreigners Act and its subsequent orders.

This contention was rejected by the constitutional bench as it saw no conflict between the two statutes and held that both of them supplement and complement each other under the framework of section 6a. In simpler terms, according to the 6a judgement, even if an individual is charged under the provisions of IEAA they will still have to be presented in front of the Foreigners Tribunals where due process will be followed. Hence the Chief Minister’s claims that the state is empowered to evict people, without referring the cases to the Foreigners tribunals is entirely unfounded and also directly contradictory to the Supreme Court’s judgement.

Lastly, even if we accept the Assam government’s interpretation of the 6a judgement, it still would not justify the expulsion of individuals as they were already out on bail, as mentioned earlier. The actions of the Assam government since May 23, 2025 are full of procedural lapses and seem to be based on flawed interpretations of Supreme Court judgements/ orders. These oversights seem to be a result of the regime’s eagerness to expel DNFs, which may be admirable to many, but; the government should be wary of the fact that any negation of due process, irrespective of the cause, drains the public’s trust on institutions.

(The authors: Samik Roy Chowdhury is a PhD Scholar at the Institute of Development Studies Kolkata, Nargis Choudhury, a PhD Scholar, The Assam Royal Global University and Gorky Chakraborty, an Associate Professor, Institute of Development Studies Kolkata)

Related:

SC stays deportation of woman declared foreigner, issues notice on challenge to Gauhati HC Order

No breach, no recall, yet detained again: Gauhati HC seeks affidavit from State for re-detentions of COVID-era released detainees

Pushed Back, Let Down: How the state has let down the marginalised in Assam

The post Disregarding Due Process: Debunking the justification of push-outs in Assam appeared first on SabrangIndia.

However, throughout the day, during the one-day session, opposition MLAs and the Chief Minister engaged in a heated discussion on the contentious topic of citizenship: the speeches and deliberations centred around the manner in which the Assam police have been forcibly detaining people in the state in late night operations, wrongly dubbing them as “foreigners” since May 24/25, 2025. Under state target have been especially Bengali-speaking Muslims who have been –without recourse to due process –expelled to no man’s land, many of them have subsequently even returned home.

Leader of the Opposition in the Assembly, Debabrata Saikia led the charge by moving a motion in the Legislative Assembly, prompting the Chief Minister to respond. Several opposition MLA then took the floor, voicing their concerns and perspectives on the issue. The chief minister Himanta Biswas Sarma attempted to project himself as a saviour of the Assamese speaking communities, pushing the blame on previous Congress governments. This angered several members of the Opposition who took him on, point by point, in detail. They pointed out that the first declaration of ‘D-Voter’ (Doubtful Voter) took place in 1997 when the government was ruled by Prafulla Mahanta of the AGP (Asom Gana Parishad). Sarma also gave incorrect information in the House that the practice of creation of D-Voters was begun during the time of Hiteswar Saikia (Former Congress chief minister of Assam, who is also father of Debabrata Saikia), but the fact is that Hiteswar Saikia was died on April 11, 1996 and the practice of D-voters was started from 1997.

Himanta also defended the moves saying that the “push” was taking place in accordance with the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Order, 1950 and a recent Supreme Court order. Incidentally, the Citizens for Justice and Peace has in memorandum to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) detailed how no procedures at all were followed by the authorities while they conducted the recent drives. These may be read here and here.

Meanwhile, the members of the opposition were vociferous in the tactics being employed by the authorities, urging that, any foreigners identified in the state, who have entered after 1971 (the cut-off date in Assam Accord) should be sent abroad (deported) according to provisions of law and procedure and any repatriation agreement with neighbouring countries, however the hounding and torture of poor, innocent Indians under the slur/label of being “Bangladeshi” must be stopped.

The entire speech of the LoP in the Assam Assembly, Debabrata Saikia is being reproduced here:

Monday, June 9, 2005

“We all know that Assam Movement was held to expel foreigners and after the Assam Accord of 1985, among all clauses, Clause 5 was very important. (This is) because it talks about the identification of foreigners and (the process to be followed) to expel foreigners from India.

And to carry this out smoothly, NRC updation process was undertaken on the base of 1951 NRC. And, finally, in the year 2013, SC directed (the Assam government) to update the NRC in Assam.  And finally we have the final draft of the NRC dated August 31, 2019.

On July 22, 2018, through a press conference, the then Home minister Rajnath Singh said that even after the final NRC, Foreigners Tribunal will detect the citizenship of people. He also said that any person’s name that has been dropped out from the final draft of NRC, (even) he or she can appeal. When the draft was published, it was seen that 19 lakh people were excluded from the NRC. At the time, Rajnath Singh also announced that a ‘Rejection slip’ will be provided to (ensure that people undergo process) to include their name in the NRC and if needed Goverment will provide the legal aid.

Later also, (with a change of guard) the Home Minister, Amit Shah said that all help will be provided to the people left out from the NRC and only foreigners tribunal will decide on the citizenship. No person should think themselves as outsider, until or unless Foreigners Tribunal take a decision on this, he had said.

The Supreme Court (SC) also declared that in the judgement of Abdul Kuddus that if any person was declared as foreigner he can approach the High Court or Supreme Court in appeal.

After the release of the final draft list of the NRC, government authorities announced that 200 Special tribunals would be set up. However, in October 2023, 3,34,964 cases were reportedly disposed off by the tribunals, 96,146 cases are still ongoing in the FTs. A total of 10, 3764 people were reportedly declared foreigners.

However after the release of the Final Draft of the NRC (August 31, 2019), the government did not provide the rejection slip to those excluded from the list. And it is these who are facing many challenges challenge due to not being enrolled in the NRC. They are facing problems of Aadhaar card exclusion and exclusion from government welfare schemes because “only citizens can avail welfare of the state.”

Recently the Assam Government has “pushed back” more than 100 people based –ostensibly– on a judgement of the SC. People were (simply) left in the No Man’s land. Almost 1200 people were sent, possibly 1000 people didn’t come back but those sent from Assam were taken back again (this was in the context of persons sent from Gujarat, Delhi, etc.)

The Union Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar had said, when Indians were repatriated from America or at other times, according to the rules and regulations, no one should be considered a foreigner until proven so. The suffering inflicted on Indian citizens in Assam by labelling them as foreigners has been highlighted in the recent declaration.

Therefore, we demand that, rejection slips should be given through the National Register of Citizens (NRC) process. And, through the legal process, foreigners should be identified and those who are Indians should be included. According to a report of CJP (Citizens for Justice and Peace), during the NRC process in 2019, around 60 people in Assam attempted suicide due to various fears and trauma. Among them, 32 were Hindus and the rest belonged to other religions.

One such tragic incident was of a highly educated individual from Kharupetia, who held MA, LLB, and BT degrees, and worked as a teacher. He was subjected to constant taunts and comments like ‘Look Bangladeshi has come’ while walking on the streets or at market, which led him to take his own life in 2018 due to extreme fear and anxiety.

Recently, Sonabhanu from Barpeta was left in no man’s land in May (2025) while her appeal was still pending in the Supreme Court. Additionally, 51-year-old Khairul Islam from Morigaon was declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal and the High Court, and he has filed an appeal in the Supreme Court.

There are many such people for whom the verdict has not been delivered yet they have become victim of the government’s moves. Besides, the statement that citizenship will be granted based on a particular religion to those who are Bangladeshi, under the Citizenship Amendment Act 2014, which was mentioned in 2019, has brought shame to many. This is evident from the suicide of Nirad Baran Das ((On October 20, 2918 tragedy struck Kharupetia town in Darrang district of Assam, when a retired school teacher and advocate Nirod Baran Das “took his life by hanging himself to a fan in his home.” CJP’s report had stated that Das had become “fearful and insecure of being arrested, wrested of his citizenship, declared a non-Indian, took his own life after hanging himself from a fan in his home”, claiming, NRC had declared him a foreigner even though “he was born and brought up in the town where he taught” and was in “possession of all the legacy documents.”))

.Therefore (we demand), that the process (of expelling foreigners) should be carried out as per the Assam Accord. The manner in which (Indians), who are “merely suspected” as D-Voters (Doubtful Voters), are declared foreigners by the Foreigners Tribunal, and later proved not to be foreigners in the High Court – this process needs to be more realistic so that people are not wrongly labelled as foreigners.

Other interventions by opposition members in the Assam legislative assembly on June 9:

• Jakir Hussain Sikdar, MLA from the Sarukhetri Assembly constituency, and Assam Pradesh Congress Working President said, “The government’s foreigner identification process is fundamentally flawed. Identifying individuals without sufficient information and evidence is entirely incorrect. The government’s misguided decisions are wrongly labelling Indian citizens as foreigners.”
• Nurul Huda, MLA, Indian National Congress (INC) from the Rupohihat Assembly constituency said that the unlawful targeting of ordinary Indian people as foreigners is unacceptable,’ he said, cautioning that continued police harassment without due process will undermine faith in the Indian judiciary.
• Ashraful Hussain, AIUDF MLA from Chenga Assembly constituency stated that the Foreigners Tribunals in Assam operate under the direct influence of the state government, with the Home Department dictating their actions. He expressed deep concern that selectively targeting indigenous people based on religion, language, and race would be utterly unfortunate.

In his replies to the Opposition members, chief minister of Assam, Himanta Biswa Sarma stated that Government does not need to take NRC as reference for deportation of foreigners. He self-abrogated the powers to deport to the District Collector and myself, legally or illegally! He added, “We will further expedite the issue of foreign extradition in accordance with the Supreme Court’s judgment. All those who came after 1971 are foreigners.”

When the Opposition rebutted stating that many who were forcibly deported have returned, an unreptentant Himanta said, “”We have pushed back about 330 people, none of them have returned and there is no question of them coming back, and this push back will increase further.”  He added, “There are 35 more ready (to be sent): I will send them too (uses un-parliamentary language) “. He also mocked Congress for starting evictions, tribal belts and blocks, D-voters, detention camps, etc., and said that he is trying to do all these things now. He also claimed that like Prafulla Mahanta (former CM) who created D-Voters, he has garnered votes on the question of “expelling foreigners.” I on the other hand, am working for my ideology and that of my party (BJP) which is different. Sarma also made a rather outlandish claim, “Today the Deputy Speaker of Assam Assembly told me that I also have the power to review FT orders, so I will also make anyone who has been made Indian into a foreigner!.. “After Bimala Prasad Chaliha (Former CM of Assam), I am the only Chief Minister who has been able to make any foreign investments.”

At this point Akhil Gogoi Independent MLA from the Raijor Dol from the Sibsagar Assembly Constituency intervened, “It would be better if you spoke like a Chief Minister, please speak like a Chief Minister.” To which Sarma replied, “I want to speak like an Assamese.” He added, “I am the Chief Minister later, but I am an Assamese first. Whatever I say, I will say it like an Assamese, like a proud Assamese.”

Akhil Gogoi said, “You are not a proud Assamese, you are a Big Zero. In your day you could not send a single foreigner (out) legally, what you did you have sent illegally.” Himanta replied,”I will send legally and I will send illegally, yes I will send illegally. ”

Related:

Union Govt admits handover of Samsul Ali to BSF, Gauhati High Court grants family visitation rights if not yet deported

Does India have a lawfully established procedure on ‘deportation’, or are actions governed by Executive secrecy and overreach?

Assam: Academics, lawyers, activists condemn ‘push back’ of persons to Bangladesh

The post Assam: Stormy one day Assembly session, LoP Debabrata Saikia compels CM Himanta Sarma to respond 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.