Deported to Bangladesh without informing: Gauhati High Court orders Rs 2 lakh payout

The bench also issued statewide interim safeguards. It directed the jurisdictional Senior Superintendent of Police (Border) or Superintendent of Police (Border) to ensure that, before taking a declared foreign national into custody, the person is informed of the Foreigners Tribunal’s opinion and provided a free copy of it. It further directed that before such a person is shifted outside the jurisdiction of the concerned district, an adult family member must be informed about the removal.

Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Susmita Phukan Khaund awarded an interim compensation of Rs 2 lakh to the woman’s son.

Deported to Bangladesh

The court was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by the son of the detenue, challenging the manner in which his mother was taken into custody and subsequently expelled from India. The detenue had earlier been declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal. However, the Gauhati High Court set aside that opinion in April 2026 after finding that the Tribunal had failed to discuss the evidence of three of the four witnesses examined in the case. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision.

Following the remand, she appeared before the Tribunal on May 29, 2026. According to the petition, she sought an adjournment, but the request was rejected. She was subsequently taken into custody by the Border Police. The petitioner said the family initially could not trace her. He later came to know that she had been moved to a detention centre and obtained a certified copy of the fresh Tribunal opinion only on June 5.

According to the Border Security Force (BSF), she was handed over by the Border Police on June 13 and sent back to Bangladesh in the intervening night of June 13 and 14.

The court observed that 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. The bench further held that the State authorities had, “acting in tandem”, prevented the detenue from exhausting her remedy before the High Court against the opinion.

The court was particularly critical of the Foreigners Tribunal’s conduct in relation to the certified copy. “Had the learned 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 learned Tribunal and/or in its vicinity at 1:30 pm, so as to be available for the police personnel to take her into custody. There was also no reason for the Office of the said learned Tribunal not to withhold issuance of certified copy immediately on its application being made,” the court observed.

Finding that the circumstances disclosed an apparent element of “malice in law”, the bench held that the Tribunal’s office had “deliberately and wilfully delayed” issuance of the certified copy.

“Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has been able to make out a case that the detenue was deprived of her right to assail the opinion dated 29.05.2026, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal,” the order read.

The bench directed that the Ministry of External Affairs be impleaded in the case and said necessary directions could be issued to make an endeavour to locate her in Bangladesh and bring her back to India so as to enable her to challenge the decision.

As an interim measure, the court directed the Government of Assam to pay Rs 2 lakh to her son. It clarified that the payment would be in addition to the petitioner’s right to seek further compensation before a civil court.