In a hearing that deepened both factual and legal ambiguity, the Gauhati High Court on October 14, 2025 heard the linked petitions concerning Abdul Sheikh and Majibur Rehman — two men re-detained in Assam despite unrevoked bail orders granted under Supreme Court directions. During the State for the first time informed the Gauhati High Court that “the government is ready to deport them,” claiming that both detainees “had once been sent back” to Bangladesh and later returned. The petitioner’s counsel, Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta, immediately objected, pointing out that this was a new and unverified claim not previously mentioned in any affidavit. He argued that if the State was asserting readiness to deport, it must first place on record evidence of verification and details of how and to where deportation would take place, since continued detention without such proof was “entirely illegal.” The Bench, however, chose not to examine either of the two central issues—the State’s claim of prior deportation or the petitioner’s insistence on verification—and simply recorded submissions from both sides before fixing October 24, 2025 for passing orders. This leaves critical factual and legal questions about the detainees’ status, verification, and custody unresolved.
The cases — Sanidul Sheikh v. Union of India and Reijya Khatun v. Union of India — were filed after both men, who had been released under Supreme Court-mandated COVID bail in 2021, were suddenly picked up again in May 2025 despite consistent compliance with all bail conditions. They have since been lodged in the Kokrajhar Holding Centre. CJP has been providing legal aid in both these cases.
State’s New Claim: “They were once sent back”
At the hearing, the FT counsel, appearing for the State, told the Bench that “the government is ready to deport them,” but added that “a stay order by this Court” prevented immediate action. The counsel went on to state that “the factual position is that they were once sent back. They came back. Now they are kept in the Kokrajhar Holding Centre.”
This was the first time such a claim had ever been made in the proceedings — no previous affidavit, submission, or oral statement had suggested that the two men had been “sent back” to Bangladesh before.
Appearing for the petitioners, Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta immediately objected: “This is being said for the first time, My Lords. It was never mentioned before.”
Petitioners demand proof of verification
Dutta pressed that before any talk of deportation, the government must first demonstrate factual and documentary verification of nationality, and clarify through which process and destination country deportation is being contemplated:
“Let them show the Court that they have completed the verification. If they have been able to verify, that is different. But they need to show where they will deport and how they will deport. Otherwise, my submission is that the detention is illegal.”
The argument underscored a crucial point — verification of nationality is a precondition to deportation, not a justification for continued detention. Yet, despite repeated demands for such evidence since June, the State has produced no records of nationality confirmation or communication from Bangladesh.
Bench Avoids Two Key Questions: Deportation claim and verification process
Despite the gravity of the new claim, the Bench did not press the State for supporting documentation or clarification on when and how the alleged earlier deportation occurred, or through which process. Nor did it examine the petitioner’s long-standing demand for production of verification records confirming nationality — a prerequisite under both domestic and international law before any lawful deportation can occur.
Instead, the Court recorded that submissions had been heard from both sides and directed that orders will be delivered on October 24, 2025.
By not engaging with either issue — the alleged “previous sending back” or the requirement of verification — the Bench left unresolved the two fundamental questions that have defined this case since its inception:
- Can persons released on Supreme Court-granted bail be re-detained without bail cancellation, solely on the State’s readiness to deport?
- Can deportation be initiated without verification or proof of nationality — or, as now alleged, after an unexplained earlier “sending back”?
Legal and factual uncertainty deepens
The State’s assertion that both men had once been “sent back” — without any affidavit or documentary trail — now sits uneasily alongside its claim that they are being held “pending deportation.” The petitioners have maintained throughout that the detention is illegal, since both men were released under valid judicial bail orders, and no court has recalled or varied those directions.
The Bench’s decision to step back from addressing either the alleged prior deportation or the absence of verification records leaves a grey area — a vacuum between State assertion and judicial scrutiny, where neither legality nor process is yet established.
Background: From bail to re-detention
Abdul Sheikh and Majibur Rehman were declared foreigners by Foreigners Tribunals in 2018 and 2019. After over two years in detention, both were released on bail under the Supreme Court’s April 2020 order in Suo Motu WP(C) No. 1 of 2020, which allowed long-term detainees to be freed under conditions of weekly reporting. For nearly two years, both complied — signing attendance registers at Kajolgaon and Goalpara Police Stations every week — until their sudden re-detention in May 2025.
Their families’ petitions have challenged these arrests as unconstitutional, arguing that bail orders remain valid until recalled and that “verification” cannot justify re-incarceration. The State has since argued that deportation efforts, halted during the pandemic, have now resumed — though it has yet to produce any official verification or communication with Bangladesh confirming nationality.
Their petitions, filed by their relatives, argued that detention without recall of bail orders is unconstitutional, and that any “verification” could be undertaken without custody. The State, however, has maintained that it is reinitiating deportations and that detention in holding centres is lawful pending such deportation.
Previous detailed reports may be read here.
Related:
Bangladeshi Court declares deported Bengal families as Indians, orders their return
Assam BJP’s AI video a manufactured dystopia, Congress files complaint, myths exposed
CJP scores big win! Citizenship restored to Mazirun Bewa, a widowed daily wage worker from Assam
Victory in Dhubri FT: Jarina Bibi declared Indian after years of ordeal
Assam’s New SOP Hands Citizenship Decisions to Bureaucrats: Executive overreach or legal necessity?