25, Sep 2025 | CJP Team

At the September 25 hearings, the Gauhati High Court heard arguments in the linked habeas corpus petitions filed by Reijya Khatun (for her husband Majibur Rehman) and SanidulSheikh (for his father Abdul Sheikh), both of whom were declared foreigners by Foreigners Tribunals, detained for over two years, and subsequently released on long-term bail under the Supreme Court’s 2020 COVID-era directions. Despite regular compliance with weekly reporting conditions, both men were re-detained in May 2025 and lodged in holding centres.

During the hearings, petitioners’ counsel criticised the State’s affidavit as “vague” and stressed that detention for “verification” is illegal when bail remains unrevoked, while the FT counsel argued that the petitions have served their purpose since the detainees’ whereabouts are known and visitation rights have been granted. The Bench comprising Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Susmita Phukan Khaunddisagreed, observing that detention continues and must be legally justified, and adjourned the matter for final arguments on October 14, 2025. CJP has provided legal aid in both the 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!

Background and earlier hearings

The current stage follows a sequence of contentious hearings. On June 25 (Abdul Sheikh) and June 26 (Majibur Rehman), the State conceded that both detainees had fully complied with their bail conditions since release but claimed that their custody was lawful because deportations, stalled during COVID, were now being initiated. The Bench at the time pointed out that no attempt had been made to recall or vary the existing bail orders and directed the State to file affidavits justifying its position.

On July 23, those affidavits were challenged by the petitioners as “vague” and “as empty as possible,” particularly because they offered no legal reasoning for why bail-compliant individuals could be picked up without cancellation of their bail. The petitioners argued that detention for “verification” is unconstitutional, as verification could be undertaken without custody. The Bench directed that the Ministry of Home Affairs’ May 2, 2025 deportation notification, which the State had invoked, be placed on record.

Arguments before the Court

Appearing for the petitioners, Advocate Mrinmoy Dutta reiterated that the continuing detention of Majibur Rehman and Abdul Sheikh is unlawful. He drew the Court’s attention to the affidavit filed by he State, pointing specifically to paragraphs 43 and 45, which provided that the detentions are being justified merely for “factual and documentary verification.” Dutta argued that such verification, if required, could have been conducted without taking the individuals into detention, and that their prolonged incarceration directly violates the Supreme Court’s earlier bail orders, which remain unrevoked.

The FT Counsel, representing the State, maintained that both men are declared foreigners and are currently in holding centres “awaiting deportation.” The Counsel submitted that the government is unable to act further because the matter is sub judice, but argued that the habeas petitions have effectively served their purpose since the detainees’ whereabouts are now known, visitation rights have been granted, and no further relief lies within the habeas framework. If the petitioners wish to challenge the underlying FT declarations, the counsel suggested, they must do so through separate proceedings.

Court’s observations

The Bench rejected the argument that the petitions are exhausted merely because the detainees have been traced. “There is still detention, and we have jurisdiction,” the Bench observed, stressing that the State would have to provide clear justification for continuing custody.

When the FT counsel suggested that the Court could take the same approach as in other similar cases—by recording the grant of visitation rights and refraining from ordering deportation. The FT counsel’s affidavit, filed earlier, was criticised by the petitioners as vague, particularly in its explanation that detention was needed for “verification.” The Court noted that substantive arguments on the affidavit and the legality of detention had not yet been heard due to time constraints.

Order

Recording submissions from both sides, the Court adjourned the matter, noting that the Bench was available only for the first half of the day. The petitions will now be taken up for detailed hearing on October 14, 2025.

The Court’s order states:

The October 14 hearing is expected to be critical. The Court will examine:

Until then, Abdul Sheikh and Majibur Rehman remain in custody, with visitation rights granted to their families.

Related:

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?