Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010188712025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4931/2025 SAYED ALI SHEIKH @ SOIYED ALI S/O LATE BAHEJ ALI, VILL- HARBHANGA, P.O.- TULSIBIL, P.S.- GOSSAIGAON, DIST- KOKRAJHAR, BTAD, ASSAM, PIN-783360 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 8 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-01 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GHY-06 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME DEPARTMENT DISPUR GHY-06 4:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI-05 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) KOKRAJHAR ASSAM PIN-783370 6:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KOKRAJHAR Page No.# 2/7 ASSAM PIN-783370 7:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE GOSSAIGAON POLICE STATION DIST- KOKRAJHAR BTAD ASSAM PIN-783370 8:THE ELECTOR REGISTRATION OFFICER NO. 29 KOKRAJHAR WEST (ST) LAC DIST- KOKRAJHAR ASSAM PIN-783370 9:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DETENTION CAMP MATIA DIST- GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-78312 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MONDAL, S S AHMED,MR K ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, ECI,SC, NRC,SC, F.T,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER Date : 29-08-2025 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. K. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H. Gupta, learned CGC for Union of India; Ms. A. Verma, 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. H.K. Hazarika, learned Govt. Advocate for the State respondent. Page No.# 3/7 2) By an opinion dated 15.02.2017, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Kokrajhar, in Case No. K/FT/D/242/06, arising out of B/KJR/DOUBTFUL I.M/98/2552 dated 30.07.1998, the petitioner namely, Sayed Ali Sheikh @ Soiyed Ali was declared to be a foreigner who had illegally entered into India (Assam) after 25.03.1971. 3) The said opinion was unsuccessfully assailed by the petitioner by filing W.P.(C) 2114/2017 before this Court. The said writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was dismissed by order dated 08.05.2018. The said order dated 08.05.2018 was assailed before the Supreme Court of India, which was registered as Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).35246/2018, which was dismissed by order dated 29.10.2018. After dismissal of the said Special Leave Petition (Civil), the petitioner filed a review petition before this Court being Review Pet.55/2019, which was also dismissed by order dated 21.05.2019. Thus, all the said orders including the opinion dated 15.02.2017 passed by the learned Foreigners Tribunal, Kokrajhar, have attained finality. 4) The petitioner projects that he was taken into custody on 15.02.2017. It is projected that the petitioner was released from the Detention Camp at Goalpara pursuant to the order dated 10.05.2019, passed by the Supreme Court of India in W.P.(C) 1045/2018- Supreme Court Legal Services Committee v. Union of India & Anr., the petitioner was released on 20.04.2020, on the ground that he was in Detention Camp for more than 3 years. It is also projected that the petitioner was reporting before the Superintendent of Police (Border), quarterly. However, he has again taken into custody on 25.05.2025 by the police personnel and kept at the Transit Camp at Matia, Goalpara. 5) Accordingly, by filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has Page No.# 4/7 prayed for being released from the Transit Camp, Matia, Goalpara till the process of verification and deportation is completed in terms of the order dated 10.05.2019 passed by the Supreme Court of India; and to direct the petitioner to be released on parole, considering the detention period in terms of the said order dated 10.05.2019 passed by the Supreme Court of India. 6) 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 to be squarely covered by the order dated 21.08.2025, passed in the said W.P. (Crl.) No. 37/2025. 7) By referring to 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. 8) 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 the petitioner, namely, Sayed Ali Page No.# 5/7 Sheikh @ Soiyed Ali, the said “declared foreign national” and to take steps for his expulsion from the Country. The Court hopes and trusts that the appropriate Government must have, in the meantime, come out with 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. 9) 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 petitioner, 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 his choice or to carry out any vocation, trade or calling of his 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 petitioner is lawfully being held by the State in the Transit Camp, Matia, Goalpara pursuant to declaration given vide opinion dated 15.02.2017, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal Kokrajhar, in Case No. Case No. K/FT/D/242/06, arising out of B/KJR/DOUBTFUL I.M/98/2552 dated 30.07.1998, thereby holding the petitioner as a foreign national, who had entered into India from the specified territory (i.e. present Bangladesh) after 1971, awaiting his deportation and/or expulsion from India and none of his fundamental rights have been violated. His detention has successfully been justified by the State as a foreign national, so declared by Page No.# 6/7 the Foreigners Tribunal, and he cannot have unfettered right to travel throughout India or to reside at a place of his choice or to carry out any trade, vocation or calling of his choice. Moreso, when the Covid-19 Pandemic situation does not prevail in the Country. 10) It had been urged that the petitioner was taken into custody and thereafter he is on bail. The release of the petitioner on bail 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 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. 11) 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 petitioner, namely, Sayed Ali Sheikh @ Soiyed Ali, who is a declared and detained foreign national, is not found entitled to be released. All the prayers made in this writ petition is rejected and the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage without issuance of notice on the respondents. 12) Under the circumstances, there shall be no order as to cost. 13) The Registry shall transmit a copy of this order by e-mail to the Page No.# 7/7 learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Kokrajhar, to be made a part of the record of Case No. K/FT/D/242/06, arising out of B/KJR/DOUBTFUL I.M/98/2552 dated 30.07.1998, disposed of by opinion dated 15.02.2017. JUDGE JUDGE. Comparing Assistant