Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010125952025 2025:GAU-AS:11636-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : W.P.(Crl.)/23/2025 MD. MAZIBUR RAHMAN S/O- LATE SOBAN ALI, R/O- VILL.- LALAKHAT, P.O. AND P.S. DHULA, DIST. DARRANG, ASSAM, PIN- 784125. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-1. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) DARRANG P.O. AND P.S. MANGALDOI DIST. DARRANG ASSAM PIN- 784125. 4:THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NEW DELHI-1. 5:THE STATE CO-ORDINATOR OF NRC BHANGAGARH ASSAM GUWAHATI-05. 6:THE DITSIRCT COMMISSIONER Page No.# 2/7 P.O. AND P.S. MANGALDOI DIST. DARRANG ASSAM PIN- 784125. 7:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE DHULA POLICE STATION DIST. DARRANG ASSAM PIN- 784125 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MAHMUD, MR S H MAHMUD,MR S ISLAM,MS. D BORA,MS. B CHETIA Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, ECI,GA, ASSAM,SC, NRC,SC, F.T BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 29.08.2025 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.R. Adhikari, learned CGC for Union of India; Mr. J. Payeng, learned standing counsel for the FT, Border matters and NRC; Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. A.I. Ali, learned standing counsel for the ECI; and Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate for the State respondent. 2) The petitioner in this case is Md. Mazibur Rahman. By an ex parte opinion dated 22.08.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 4th, Darrang, Mangaldai, in Case No. F.T. (4th) 812/2015 [arising out of IM(D)T Case No. 1013/2001], Manikjan Bibi, projected to be the wife of the petitioner had been declared to be an illegal migrant/ foreigner of post Page No.# 3/7 25.03.1971 stream from Bangladesh and was also held liable to be pushed back. The said Manikjan Bibi was taken into custody on 13.04.2018. 3) After being taken into custody, the said ex parte opinion was unsuccessfully assailed by Manikjan Begum (spelt in the opinion as Manikjan Bibi), by filing W.P.(C) 6290/2018 before this Court. The said writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was dismissed by order dated 14.09.2018. The said order of this Court was assailed before the Supreme Court of India, but vide order dated 01.07.2019, passed by the Supreme Court of India in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 10587/2019, the said SLP was dismissed. Thus, the Tribunal’s opinion dated 22.08.2018 has attained finality. 4) That on completion of two years in detention, the said proceedee is stated to have been released pursuant to the order dated 10.05.2021, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 6056/2019- Samsul Hoque v. Union of India & Ors., and order dated 13.04.2020, passed by the Supreme Court of India in Re: Contagion of Covid 19 Virus in Prisons, Suo Motu W.P.(Civil) No. 1/2020, whereby direction were issued to release the detenues who are recommended by High Powered Committee to be constituted by each State. Accordingly, the projected wife of the petitioner is stated to have been released on bail. However, the date of release has not been pleaded. Moreover, no document of bail having been granted to the petitioner’s projected wife or relating to her release from custody has been annexed to the writ petition. 5) The projected wife of the petitioner has been taken into custody on 23.05.2025 along with her minor daughter. As the whereabouts of the said proceedee is not known, the present writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus has been filed and the petitioner has prayed to declare the detention of Page No.# 4/7 Manikjan Begum on 25.05.2025 (sic. should be read as 23.05.2025), as illegal, null and void, more so, when she has been released on bail by the Superintendent of the Detention Centre, Tezpur; to produce the body of Manikjan Begum and her minor daughter in Court. 6) This writ petition was filed on 09.06.2025 and the matter was listed on 11.06.2025, and this Court by order dated 11.06.2025, directed the State respondents to obtain instructions as regards their whereabouts and place. On 13.06.2025, the learned standing counsel for the FT matters, Home and NRC had submitted that as per instructions received, the said Manikjan Begum and her nine month old child were lodged in the Holding Centre under 7th APBn., Charaikhola, Kokrajhar. Accordingly, the Court issued a direction to the In-charge of the said Holding Centre to allow the petitioner, and two others to visit the said Manikjan Begum and her nine month old child Moriom Begum and to take the signature of the detained person in the vakalatnama, to be identified by the said authority. 7) On 06.08.2025, when the matter was listed, the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the detained foreign national along with her minor daughter were sent back to Bangladesh, but as the authorities in Bangladesh did not accept them, they were kept in no man’s land and on returning to the Indian Territory, they were again taken into custody. The learned Advocate General denied the said allegation and it was submitted that in their affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2, the stand is that as the process of deportation has been initiated, the declared foreign national has been kept in the Holding Centre to facilitate some documentary verification after which appropriate steps would be taken in the matter. It was submitted that the declared foreign national do not have a right to prolong their stay in the Page No.# 5/7 Country. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 18.08.2025. 8) The allegation about illegality committed by the State in the manner the declared foreign national was taken into custody and kept in the Holding Centre including propriety of State to take into custody the declared foreign national, who is on bail are issues that has extensively been dealt by this Court in W.P.(Crl.) No. 37/2025. The case of the petitioner is found to be squarely covered by the order dated 21.08.2025, passed in the said W.P.(Crl.) No. 37/2025. 9) By referring and extensively quoting from the case of Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India, (2005) 5 SCC 665, Hans Muller of Nurenburg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail, Calcutta & Ors., (1955) 1 SCC 167, and Pankaj Kumar Chakrabarty & Ors. v. State of W.B. & Ors., AIR 1970 SC 97: (1969) 0 Supreme (SC) 225, this Court had held therein that the State had unfettered right to expel a foreign national, so declared by the Foreigners Tribunal by its opinion and the keeping of such declared foreign national in Holding Centre has been held to be justified. The said order is found to apply under the facts and circumstances of this case. 10) Therefore, in light of the decision of this Court in the case of Malek Ostar v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(Crl.) 37/2025, decided on 21.08.2025, the Court is of the considered opinion that there is no cause for preventing the State from taking an appropriate action against Manikjan Begum (spelt as Manikjan Bibi in the impugned opinion of the learned Tribunal), the said “declared foreign national” and to take steps for her expulsion from the Country. The Court hopes and trusts that the appropriate Government must have, in the meantime, come without its policy for expulsion of a foreigner so declared by the Foreigners Tribunals in Assam. The Court also hopes and trusts that in the Page No.# 6/7 absence of any policy, such a policy should be framed as early as possible. 11) In light of the decision of this Court in the case of Malek Ostar (supra), the Court is unable to accept that any legal and fundamental right of the said Manikjan Begum (spelt as Manikjan Bibi in the impugned opinion of the learned Tribunal), a “declared foreign national”, purportedly under Articles 14, 16, 18, 21, 22 of the Constitution of India has been violated. As laid down in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal (supra), the said “declared foreign national” is not found to have any fundamental right in India to move freely or to reside at any place of her choice or to carry out any vocation, trade or calling of her choice. What is guaranteed under the Constitution of India, which would be available even to a declared foreign national, is the right to life, without any right to move freely within the Country, or to reside at any particular place of choice, or to carry out any vocation, trade or calling as the declared foreign national may so desire. The Court is also constrained to hold that the said Manikjan Begum (spelt as Manikjan Bibi in the impugned opinion of the learned Tribunal), is lawfully being held by the State in the Holding Centre pursuant to declaration given vide ex parte opinion dated 22.02.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal (4th), Darrang, Mangaldai, in Case No. F.T.(4th) 812/2015, holding the said Manikjan Bibi as a foreign national, who had entered into India from the specified territory of present Bangladesh after 25.03.1971, awaiting her deportation and/or expulsion from India. Her detention along with her nine month old child at the Holding Centre has successfully been justified by the State as a foreign national, so declared by the Foreigners Tribunal, cannot have unfettered right to travel throughout India or to reside at a place of her choice or to carry out any trade, vocation or calling of her choice. Moreso, when the Covid-19 Pandemic situation does not prevail in the Country. Page No.# 7/7 12) Therefore, on all counts, in light of the discussions made in the decision of this Court in the case of Malek Ostar (supra), this writ petition fails and is thus, dismissed. 13) The detained declared foreign national, namely, Manikjan Begum (spelt as Manikjan Bibi in the impugned opinion of the learned Tribunal) is not found entitled to be released. However, it would be her choice to keep the minor child with her. It is also held that after being declared to be an illegal foreign national, Manikjan Begum (spelt as Manikjan Bibi in the impugned opinion of the learned Tribunal) is not entitled to any right of further hearing for determination of her citizenship status, pending her expulsion from the Country. All the prayers made in this writ petition are rejected. 14) Under the circumstances, there shall be no order as to cost. 15) The Registry shall transmit a copy of this order by e-mail to the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal 4th, Darrang, Mangaldai, to be made a part of record of Case No. F.T. (4th) 812/2015 [arising out of IM(D)T Case No. 1013/2001], disposed of by ex parte opinion dated 22.08.2018. JUDGE JUDGE. Comparing Assistant