Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010158272025 2025:GAU-AS:11638-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : W.P.(Crl.)/45/2025 JAAN ALI S/O ANUWAR ALI, R/O VILL- CHANGMAI GAON, P.O. AND P.S.- MORANHAT, DIST- CHARAIDEO, ASSAM, PIN-785669 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-01 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 3:THEE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI-781007 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CHARAIDEO P.O. AND DIST- CHARAIDEO ASSAM PIN-785691 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (BORDER) CHARAIDEO P.O. AND DIST- CHARAIDEO ASSAM Page No.# 2/7 PIN-785691 6:THE SPECIAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (BORDER) ASSAM ASSAM POLICE HEADQUARTERS ULUBARI GUWAHATI-781007 7:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE MORANHAT POLICE STATION DIST- CHARAIDEO ASSAM PIN-78567 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S A AHMED, MS. K DAS,MR. F A AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR M R ADHIKARI (C.G.C),GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 29.08.2025 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. S.A. Ahmed, 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 Jaan Ali. He projects himself to be the husband of Musstt. Hamida Begum, who, by an ex parte opinion dated 04.12.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Jorhat, in Case No. F.T./CRD/3/2018 [arising out of S.P.’s Enquiry No. 13/2028], was declared to Page No.# 3/7 be a foreigner who had illegally entered into India (Assam) after 25.03.1971. 3) The said ex parte opinion was unsuccessfully assailed by the said Hamida Begum by filing W.P.(C) 8179/2019 before this Court. The said writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was dismissed by order dated 01.10.2020. Thus, both the said order dated 01.10.2020, as well as the Tribunal’s ex parte opinion dated 04.12.2018, have attained finality. 4) The said Musstt. Hamida Begum was taken into custody on 11.11.2020. Thereafter, she was released from Central Jail, Jorhat on 22.11.2022. She has again been taken into custody on 27.05.2025 by the police personnel from Moranhat Police Station and since then her whereabouts are not known. 5) Accordingly, the present writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus has been filed, whereby the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the Superintendent of Police (Border), Charaideo and the Officer-In-Charge of Moranhat Police Station to produce the petitioner’s projected wife Hamida Begum before the Court; if the detention of Hamida Begum is found to be illegal, to direct her immediate release; to restrain the respondents from deporting Hamida Begum to Bangladesh without following due process of law including a reasonable opportunity of hearing and determination of her citizenship status; to direct the respondents to comply with procedural safeguards, including issuance of an arrest memo and notification to the family in accordance with law; to pass an order ensuring the protection of Hamida Begum’s fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India including her right to life and personal liberty; to direct payment of compensation for violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and for causing mental agony and trauma due to unlawful Page No.# 4/7 detention of petitioner’s wife; and pending disposal of the writ petition, to restrain the respondents from taking coercive action against Hamida Begum, including deportation and transfer to any other place and to ensure her safety and well-being. 6) This writ petition was filed on 18.07.2025 and the matter was listed on 28.07.2025, and this Court by order dated 28.07.2025, directed the State respondents to obtain instructions as regards her whereabouts and as to whether the said declared foreigner has been deported out of the Country. On 31.07.2025, the learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters had submitted that extra copies of the writ petition was not furnished to her and therefore, instructions could not be obtained, however, the learned CGC had produced instructions, which were perused and returned. On 06.08.2025, when the matter was listed, the learned standing counsel for the FT matters, Home and NRC had submitted that as per instructions received, the said Musstt. Hamida Begum, daughter of Ramjan Ali, a declared foreign national, was lodged in the Holding Centre, Matia, Goalpara. Accordingly, the Court had issued a direction to the In-charge of the said Holding Centre to permit visitation right to the petitioner and one other person and allow them to take the signature of the detained person in the vakalatnama, to be identified by the said official. 7) On 18.08.2025, the matter was heard. 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, negating any illegality committed by the State in apprehending the declared foreign national. The case of the petitioner is found Page No.# 5/7 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 to 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 Musstt. Hamida Begum, 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 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 Musstt. Hamida Begum, 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 Page No.# 6/7 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 Musstt. Hamida Begum, is lawfully being held by the State in the Holding Centre pursuant to declaration given vide an ex parte opinion dated 04.12.2018, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal Jorhat, in Case No. F.T./CRD/3/2018 [arising out of S.P.’s Enquiry No. 13/2028], thereby holding the said Musstt. Hamida Begum as a foreign national, who had entered into India from the specified territory (i.e. present Bangladesh) after 25.03.1971, awaiting her deportation and/or expulsion from India and none of her fundamental rights have been violated. Her detention has successfully been justified by the State as a foreign national, so declared by the Foreigners Tribunal, and she 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. 12) It had been urged that the said Musstt. Hamida Begum was taken into custody on 11.11.2020, pursuant to the ex parte opinion passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal, and thereafter, released on bail. The Court is constrained to hold that the release of the petitioner on bail due to Covid-19 pandemic situation would not be an impediment to the State respondents to take steps for expulsion of the declared foreign national as neither the Supreme Court of India nor this Court had stayed the process of expulsion of a foreigner Page No.# 7/7 in Assam, who has been so declared by the Foreigners Tribunals. It may be stated that save and except in the State of Assam, in the rest of the Country, it is the Executive, who take appropriate steps to expel a foreigner illegally staying in the Country and/or an illegal migrant. It is only in the State of Assam that under Section 6-A of the Citizenship Act, Foreigners Tribunals have been constituted for giving its opinion as to whether a proceedee is a foreigner who has illegally entered into India from the specified territory of Bangladesh after 25.03.1971. 13) 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. The detained declared foreign national, namely, Hamida Begum is not found entitled to be released. It is also held that after being declared to be an illegal foreign national, Musstt. Hamida Begum 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 is 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 Jorhat, to be made a part of the record of Case No. F.T./CRD/3/2018 [arising out of S.P.’s Enquiry No. 13/2028], disposed of by ex parte opinion dated 04.12.2018. JUDGE JUDGE. Comparing Assistant