Gauhati High Court Orders ₹2 Lakh Interim Compensation For Woman Expelled To Bangladesh Without Supplying Foreigners Tribunal Order

The Gauhati High Court directed the Assam government to pay Rs. 2 Lakh as interim compensation to the husband of a woman expelled from the country and sent to Bangladesh, noting that the Foreigner's Tribunal "wilfully delayed" issuance of certified copy of opinion declaring her a foreigner to ensure that she is removed— which displayed "malice in law". 

In doing so the court observed that the detenue or her adult family members should have been provided either a copy of the opinion of the Foreigner's Tribunal 30.05.2026 or an information in writing of the arrest and detention and removal from the jurisdiction from the District Commissioner, Nagaon and Senior Superintendent of Police (B), Nagaon. 

A division bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund in its order said: 

"The respondents have not produced any record that the detenue or any adult family members were informed about the reason for taking the detenue into custody or the decision by the District Commissioner, Nagaon, to expel the detenue from the Country. In any view of the matter, the said three cases do not allow the Foreigners Tribunal to delay issuance of certified copy of the opinion so that in the meantime she can be shifted from Juria to Nagaon and then to Holding Area at Matia, Goalpara and then to Sribhumi to be expelled from the Country. Thus, the State machinery, acting in tendem, had prevented the detenue to exhaust her right to move this Court by way of a writ petition to challenge the impugned opinion dated 30.05.2026...

In light of the discussions above, 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/- (Rupees Two lakh only) to the petitioner. This palliative payment of compensation shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the right of the petitioner to seek compensation before the Civil Court"

The court found that the nature of action taken by the Tribunal had an "element of malice" on the face of the record. It said that had the Tribunal informed the detenue even verbally that she was declared to be a foreigner, there would have been no reason for her to be in the campus of the Tribunal and/or in its vicinity between 01:30- 2:00 pm on 30.05.2026, so as to be available for the police personnel to take her into custody.

"The Court is inclined to hold that the office of the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 4th, Nagaon, at Juria, deliberately and wilfully delayed the issuance of certified copy of the impugned opinion dated 30.05.2026, so as to ensure that by that time, the detenue would be removed from Nagaon District. Thus, a case of malice in law has been made out against the respondent no. 10 (Tribunal)," the court added. 

Further, on noting that the respondents had not shown as to why protection of right under Article 22 of the Constitution of India should not be extended to those proceedee who are being arrested and detained on the same day when the opinion is passed by the Foreigners Tribunals the court passed the following directions:

• The jurisdictional Senior Superintendent of Police (Border) and/or the Superintendent of Police (Border) of every district of the State of Assam, as the case may be, should ensure that before taking Declared Foreign National (DFN) into custody, he/she shall be informed about the opinion passed against him/her by the Foreigners Tribunals and also provide them with a free copy of such opinion.
  
• Moreover, before such DFN are shifted to outside the jurisdiction of the jurisdictional Senior Superintendent of Police (Border) and/or the Superintendent of Police (Border) of every district of the State of Assam, as the case may be, the adult family member of the DFN should be informed that the detenue is being removed from their jurisdiction. 
• The compliance of the aforesaid two interim directions should be reported to the District Magistrate of the concerned District by the jurisdictional Senior Superintendent of Police (Border) and/or the Superintendent of Police (Border) of every district of the State of Assam, as the case may be.

The court passed the order in a habeas corpus plea filed by the woman's husband who argued that his wife's case was tried by Foreigners Tribunal, Nagaon and it had opined on 6.06.2019, declaring her to be a foreigner. 

The woman had filed her written statement and also filed her evidence-on-affidavit, wherein she had denied that she was a foreigner and claimed to be Indian citizen. 

She also referred to produced documents showing her parentage as well as school transfer certificate. She challenged the tribunal's opinion and the high court had in April 2026  held remanded the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh decision asking the woman to appear before the Tribunal on or before 30.05.2026.

The petitioner claimed that his wife appeared before the tribunal on the date and her counsel produced the certified copy of the order passed by the high Court. After doing so the counsel left the tribunal while the wife stayed on. At about 1:00 pm, the police personnel from Juria Police Station arrived at the precincts of the  Tribunal and arrested the detenue and took her to the Juria Police Station.

When the petitioner came to know about it, he claimed he went to meet the Tribunal member but he was ousted from the Chamber of the Member and he was informed that his previous opinion would prevail and he would pass his opinion later.

It was claimed that the detenue was shifted from Juria Police Station to Sadar Police Station, Nagaon, where she was kept the night. On 31.05.2026, the detenue was produced before the office of the Superintendent of Police (Border), Nagaon and later that day, the detenue was sent to Transit/ Detention Camp, Matia, Goalpara. 

The petitioner went to the Transit/Detention Camp, Matia, Goalpara, to obtain the signature of the detenue in the vakalatnama but was informed that the detenue was taken back by the Police to Nagaon. The petitioner returned back and on 09.06.2026, he went to Juria Police Station, Sadar Police Station, Nagaon, and Office of the Superintendent of Police, Nagaon, but he got no information of the whereabouts of the detenue.

The Court was informed by the standing counsel for the Foreigners Tribunal and Border matters that the detenue was handed over to the Border Security Force. Thereafter, when the matter was listed on 24.06.2026, the counsel for Central Government informed on instructions that the detenue had been sent back to Bangladesh on 14.06.2026 at about 00:10 hours.

The court referred to Executive Order dated 29.10.2025, by which Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) under the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 was issued by the Assam Government envisaging three steps. 

The first process is self-removal; the second step is removal by use of force; and third step is removal of DFN. The SP, Nagaon submitted a copy of the Order under Section 2 of the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act dated 02.06.2026, issued by the District Commissioner, Nagaon, by which along with three others, the detenue was directed to remove herself from the territory of India (Assam) within 24 (twenty four) hours.

On this the court said:

"In the considered opinion of the Court, it is obvious that the said order is farcical and was never intended to be complied with. It cannot be believed that the Police authorities had withheld information from the District Commissioner, Nagaon (respondent no.5) that the detenue was arrested and/or taken into custody on 30.05.2026 and on the same day, the detenue was shifted to Holding Area, Matia, Goalpara, by virtue of order no. NGN/B/2026/678 dated 30.05.2026, passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police (Border), Nagaon. Therefore, 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. The said order discloses that a copy of the said order was to be served on the detenue, but the respondent nos. 5 and 6 have failed to annex any document with their respective affidavit-in-opposition to show that a copy of the said order dated 02.06.2026, was actually served on the detenue". 

The court thereafter referred to affidavits filed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Nagaon, the Member, Foreigners Tribunal, 4th, Nagaon, Juria and the Deputy Inspector General, Sector HQ BSF, Silchar, and said that "none of them have made any statement that while arresting the detenue, she was served with a copy of the opinion dated 30.05.2026, passed by the respondent no.10 (Tribunal)".

The court said that the police had disclosed any record maintained with them that when was the detenue arrested and brought, whether she had in her possession the copy of the opinion dated 30.05.2026, by which she was declared to be a foreigner.

The court also rejected the Tribunal counsel's submission that the family members of the detenue had not shown any urgency to apply for certified copy of the opinion, which they could have applied on 30.05.2026.

It said that the respondents had not produced any material on record to show that the detenue and/or her family members were served either with a copy of the opinion dated 30.05.2026 or any information/ notice informing that the detenue was arrested and taken to Juria Police Station, or to the Office of the Senior Superintendent of Police (Border), Nagaon, or that the detenue was shifted to Holding Area, Matia, Goalpara.

The court also said that there was no material to show that when the detenue was brought into Juria Police Station, the detenue was provided with a copy of the said opinion and/or the police personnel had been provided with a copy of the opinion dated 30.05.2026. Further the District Commissioner, Nagaon expulsion order also does not disclose about the opinion dated 30.05.2026.

"In this case, by not providing a copy of the opinion to the detenue, or to any adult member of her family, a valuable time of the petitioner was spent to trace out the detenue, and by the time the petitioner could obtain certified copy of the opinion and return back to the Holding Area, Matia, Goalpara, the detenue had been shifted to Sribhumi, which is more than 400 km away, and would perhaps take 12 hours travel time. By the time order dated 19.06.2026, was passed by this Court, the detenue was already expelled from the Country," the court said. 

Thus, the court found a clear non-compliance of Clause 2(c)(i) of the SOP vide Executive Order  29.10.2025. It further found that the respondents had not shown that during pendency of the proceedings before Tribunal the detenue had vanished. 

The court further directed the impleadment of Ministry of External Affairs so that necessary directions can be issued on the next date to the authority to make an endeavour to have the detenue located in Bangladesh and to have her expatriated to India so as to give to her an opportunity to exhaust her remedy as per Clause 2(c)(i) of the Executive Order.

The court listed the matter on September 24. 

Case title: MUJAMMEL HOQUE v/s THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 10 ORS 

Case No. : W.P.(Crl.)/26/2026

Click Here To Read/Download Order