HC directs to Assam to pay two women for pushing them to Bangladesh

The Gauhati High Court has directed the Assam government to pay interim compensation of Rs 2 lakh each to the families of two women, who were declared non-citizens by a foreigners tribunal and pushed into Bangladesh without informing their kin or allowing them to exhaust their legal remedies.

Hearing two separate petitions, a division bench of Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Susmita Phukan Khaund, in its September 3 orders, impleaded the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) as a respondent to facilitate the repatriation of Mumtaz Begum and Jahanara Begum.

Both women were declared non-citizens by a foreigners tribunal in Nagaon’s Juria. For Mumtaz Begum, the petition in the high court was filed by her husband Mujammel Hoque, while Jahanara Begum’s son Mujahidul Islam filed the other plea.

Citing Supreme Court judgments, the high court said Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees protection of life and personal liberty not only to Indians, but also to non-citizens. It observed the women were prevented from exhausting their right to move this court by way of a writ petition to challenge the tribunal’s opinions about their citizenship.

In the two similar orders, the division bench said, “As the detenue has been expelled out of India without providing any information to the petitioner or any adult family member of the detention of the detenue, as an interim palliative measure, the Court is inclined to direct the Government of Assam to pay an interim compensation of Rs 2,00,000 to the petitioner.” The compensation, to be paid within 60 days of receipt of the order, shall be in addition to the right of the petitioner to seek compensation before the civil court, it said.

The bench also said it was necessary to implead MEA in the case “so that necessary orders/directions can be issued on the next date” to locate the women in Bangladesh, bring them back and give them “an opportunity to exhaust remedies... to approach this court to assail the impugned opinion by filing a writ petition, if so advised”.

In both cases, the High Court held that authorities failed to serve the women copies of the tribunal’s opinions, or inform adult members of their families about their arrest and expulsion. It also noted “a case of malice in law” against the member of the Foreigners Tribunal at Nagaon’s Juria for “deliberately and wilfully” delaying issuance of the certified copy, and the two women were sent to Bangladesh by that time.

Mumtaz Begum was declared a foreigner on June 6, 2019, by the foreigners tribunal in Juria in a case registered in 2015.

These tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies that decide the citizenship status of people living in Assam who are suspected to be foreigners.

After tribunals reach a decision about the citizenship status of these people, they are sent back to the country of their origin after due process by the MEA, provided they do not move the Gauhati High Court.

Mumtaz Begum had moved the High Court, which on April 20 this year set aside the tribunal’s opinion for not discussing evidence and directed her to appear before the tribunal on or before May 30.

According to Mujammel Hoque’s petition, Mumtaz Begum appeared before the foreigners tribunal on May 30 along with her counsel and placed the High Court order before it. The petitioner claimed that after her counsel left, personnel from the Juria police station arrested her near the tribunal premises.

She was kept at Juria police station and then at the Nagaon Sadar police station, before being shifted to a transit camp at Matia in Goalpara on May 31 and subsequently to a holding centre at Eraligool in Sribhumi district, Hoque said in his plea, seeking that his wife be produced before the court to examine whether that detention is lawful.

He told the court that his wife was handed over to the Border Security Force (BSF) on June 13.

According to the high court’s September 3 order, the BSF affidavit stated that she was “sent back to Bangladesh on June 14, 2026”, around 10 minutes past midnight in the area of Kalaincherra in Cachar.

In Jahanara Begum’s case, the court noted she was declared a foreigner on June 7, 2019, in a case registered in 2016.

After she moved the High Court, it set aside the opinion in an April 24, 2026, order, noting the tribunal had not discussed three out of four witnesses, and remanded it for a fresh decision.

The petition by her son Mujahidul Islam stated that Jahanara Begum appeared before the tribunal on May 29 this year and sought an adjournment, which was rejected.

Following that, the tribunal member called the border police and handed her over to them, even before the fresh opinion was made available to her. Inspection of records on May 30 revealed the fresh opinion, the petitioner said.

Jahanara’s custody followed a similar route -- from Juria police station to the Nagaon, then to the Matia transit camp on May 30 and subsequently to a holding centre at Eraligool on June 3 -- before being handed over to the BSF on June 13 and pushed into Bangladesh on the intervening night of June 13 and 14 at the same border point.

The High Court observed that the 24-hour self-removal orders were “farcical and never intended to be complied with”. “It is a totally absurd proposition that while the detenue is in custody in the Holding Area, Matia, Goalpara, she could have removed herself from India (Assam) within 24 hours, as directed.”

“Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the court is satisfied from the nature of action taken by the tribunal that the element of malice in law on part of the tribunal is apparent on the face of record,” it added.

The high court directed the Assam government to find out the exact date and time when the May 29 and May 30 opinions of the tribunal were made ready.

It has listed both the matters on September 24 for the next hearing.

As an interim measure, it directed the superintendent of police (border) of every district to inform a declared non-citizen about the foreigners tribunal’s opinion and provide a copy before taking him into custody, and inform his adult family members before shifting him outside jurisdiction.