What We Know So Far: June 26, 2025
In two closely linked petitions involving allegations of unlawful re-detention of individuals released under COVID-era bail guidelines, the Gauhati High Court this week recorded State admissions of full bail compliance, and directed the Government to file detailed objections by affidavit explaining how such persons can now be re-detained without first recalling standing judicial bail orders.
The petitions — Sanidul Sheikh v. Union of India, whose hearing took place on June 25, and Reijya Khatun v. Union of India, whose hearing was held on June 26, concern Abdul Sheikh and Majibur Rehman, respectively, both of whom were declared foreigners by Foreigners Tribunals (FTs), spent over two years in detention, and were released under High Court–monitored COVID bail orders pursuant to the Supreme Court’s 2020 directions in Suo Motu WP(C) No. 1/2020. Both had been reporting weekly to their local police stations for over two years, but were picked up again in May 2025, without notice or any recorded violation of bail conditions. CJP has been providing legal aid in both of these cases.
Every week, CJP’s dedicated team in Assam, comprising community volunteers, district volunteer motivators, and lawyers, provides vital paralegal support, counseling, and legal aid to many affected by the citizenship crisis in over 24 districts in Assam. Through our hands-on approach, 12,00,000 people successfully submitted completed NRC forms (2017-2019). We fight Foreigner Tribunal cases monthly at the district level. Through these concerted efforts, we have achieved an impressive success rate of 20 cases annually, with individuals successfully obtaining their Indian citizenship. This ground level data ensures informed interventions by CJP in our Constitutional Courts. Your support fuels this crucial work. Stand with us for Equal Rights for All #HelpCJPHelpAssam. Donate NOW!
June 25: Sanidul Sheikh v. Union of India
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta submitted that Abdul Sheikh, father of the petitioner Sanidul, was released on bail on April 30, 2021 pursuant to an April 15, 2020 order of the Supreme Court, and had consistently reported to the Kajolgaon Police Station every week, with no lapse recorded.
The Bench, comprising Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice K. Sema, directly questioned the State by asking “Has he been appearing every week in compliance with the Court’s bail conditions?”
To which, the FT Counsel responded affirmatively, by stating that “Yes, it is an admitted fact. He appeared regularly as directed.”
However, the FT counsel attempted to argue that the bail should no longer shield the detainee from re-arrest or deportation, stating: “The bail was granted to those awaiting deportation during COVID. The Government is now preparing for deportation of such persons. The scenario has changed.”
The Court, however, expressed serious concern over this position, pointing out that no attempt had been made to formally recall or modify the bail and stated that “You have not made any prayer before this Court or before the Supreme Court to recall those bail orders. Once bail is granted, it continues unless recalled. You cannot detain someone simply because the government’s policy has shifted.”
The FT counsel contended that the bail was part of a “blanket order,” and not specific to any individual, and that deportation had always been legally permissible — it was only delayed due to pandemic conditions.
However, the bench stated that “Yes, but unless you recall bail, detention remains impermissible. Bail once granted cannot simply be ignored.”
When petitioner’s counsel asserted that continuing detention in light of bail and compliance was illegal, the Bench reiterated that a full hearing would occur only once the State filed its objection and provided that “Let your affidavit be filed. The Court will examine the legal basis you’re asserting.”
In its formal order, the Court recorded that:
- Bail had been granted in 2021 under Supreme Court direction.
- The detainee had complied with all bail conditions.
- The State was proposing to argue that detention is still lawful due to the finality of the FT’s opinion and the resumption of deportation efforts.
The State was directed to file a detailed affidavit laying out its legal position. The Court specified that the affidavit must be served at least six days before the next hearing to give the petitioner time to reply.
The matter is now listed for July 16, 2025, following the court’s summer vacation.
Details of the earlier hearings may be read here.
June 26: Reijya Khatun v. Union of India
On June 26, the same Bench heard a structurally identical case, involving Majibur Rehman, husband of petitioner Reijya Khatun, who had been released on November 15, 2021 after more than two years in detention.
The State reiterated its earlier position: the release was part of the blanket implementation of the Supreme Court’s 2020 directions and was not rooted in a specific Gauhati High Court bail order. It argued again that the conditions that had earlier prevented deportation no longer existed, and that the State was now preparing to act on the FT opinion. However, as in the previous case, the State had not filed any application to cancel or vary the bail before taking Majibur Rehman back into custody.
Senior Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta, appearing for the petitioner, requested the Court to pass the same order as it had done in the Abdul Sheikh matter. The Bench agreed. It recorded the same facts and issued similar directions: the State is to file an affidavit setting out its legal justification for re-detention despite bail and compliance, and the petitioner may file a reply thereafter. This matter too has been listed for July 16.
Both hearings underscore a deeper legal question now facing the Gauhati High Court — can persons released on bail under court-supervised COVID directives, who have not breached any conditions of their release, be lawfully detained again merely because the State’s administrative position on deportation has shifted?
Details of the earlier hearings may be read here.
Key legal question before the High Court
The legal question now before the High Court is of substantial constitutional significance: Can a person who has been released on bail under the directions of a Constitutional Court, and who has never violated the terms of that bail, be re-arrested and placed in detention without cancellation of that bail order?
In both hearings, the petitioners stressed that continued detention of persons complying with court-imposed conditions amounts to illegal and arbitrary custody, particularly in the absence of any move by the State to recall or modify the original bail. The State, on the other hand, appears to be positioning itself on the claim that while the bail may have been lawfully granted at the time, it does not preclude deportation now that the barriers to enforcement have been lifted.
While the Court has not yet ruled on the legality of the renewed detention, it has recorded all relevant facts—particularly the undisputed bail compliance—and has granted the State one last opportunity to legally justify its position through affidavits. It has also directed that the petitioners must be given sufficient time to respond.
These petitions are part of a broader set of = proceedings currently before the Gauhati High Court, all dealing with the May 2025 re-detentions of Bengali-speaking Muslim residents of Assam who were released on long-standing bail and had been fulfilling all judicially imposed conditions. In most cases, the families were not served with arrest memos, were denied FIR registration, and had to approach the High Court for relief.
The orders passed on June 25 and 26 therefore not only shape the outcome for Abdul Sheikh and Majibur Rehman, but could also set a precedent on how the State must legally proceed before attempting to detain or deport individuals released under court orders, a question that will directly affect dozens of similar cases emerging across Assam. The Court’s eventual ruling in these two cases will likely set the tone for how other COVID-era bail orders are to be treated, and whether the State can override judicially protected liberty simply by citing administrative readiness to deport.