NEW DELHI: The Gauhati high court has directed the Assam government to pay Rs 2 lakh as interim compensation to the husband of a woman who was sent to Bangladesh after being declared a foreigner, without being informed about the tribunal’s decision or given an opportunity to challenge it. The court also ordered authorities to provide declared foreigners a free copy of tribunal opinions before taking them into custody. The order was passed on September 3, 2026.Why did Mumtaz Begum’s husband approach the high court?According to the court order, Mumtaz Begum had been declared a foreigner by the Foreigners Tribunal, 4th Nagaon at Juria, in 2019. She challenged the decision before the high court, which set it aside and directed the tribunal to take a fresh decision.Begum appeared before the tribunal on May 30, 2026, along with her lawyer. Her husband said police took her into custody from near the tribunal around 1 pm and took her first to Juria Police Station and then to Nagaon.She was subsequently sent to the holding centre at Matia, Goalpara, and later shifted to Sribhumi. Her husband said he was not informed about her detention or given a copy of the tribunal’s fresh opinion.He applied for a certified copy of the tribunal’s decision on June 2. The copy was prepared on June 4 and delivered on June 5. By then, Begum had already been shifted from Matia to Sribhumi. She was handed over to the Border Security Force on June 13 and sent back to Bangladesh in the early hours of June 14.What did the high court find wrong with the way Begum was detained and deported?The bench comprising Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund said Begum should have been informed about the tribunal’s fresh decision before she was taken into custody. This was important because she had the right to challenge that decision before the high court.The court noted that there was no record showing that Begum or any adult member of her family had been told why she was being detained or that the tribunal had again declared her a foreigner.The court also rejected the argument that earlier judgments allowed the authorities to detain her without first informing her about the tribunal’s decision. It said those judgments did not permit the state to prevent a person from approaching the high court.Explaining the effect of the authorities’ actions, the court said the delay in providing the tribunal order, combined with Begum’s movement from one detention facility to another, left her with no real opportunity to challenge the decision.“The court is of the considered opinion that the three cases of Aktara Khatun (supra), Ajijur Rahman (supra) and Md. Rustom Ali (supra), does not permit the State to take the detenue into custody without informing the detenue of her right to challenge the opinion before this court by filing a writ petition. The respondents have not produced any record that the detenue or any adult family members were informed about the reason for taking the detenue into custody or the decision by the District Commissioner, Nagaon, to expel the detenue from the country,” the court added.The court said the problem became more serious because Begum was moved from Juria to Nagaon, then to Matia and finally to Sribhumi while her husband was still trying to obtain the tribunal order.It held that these actions effectively prevented her from approaching the high court in time.“Thus, the State machinery, acting in tendem, had prevented the detenue to exhaust her right to move this Court by way of a writ petition to challenge the impugned opinion dated 30.05.2026,” the court held.The high court also questioned why the tribunal did not immediately provide the certified copy when Begum’s husband applied for it. It noted that the application was made on June 2, but the copy was delivered only on June 5.The court said the circumstances surrounding the delay raised serious questions about the tribunal’s conduct. It observed that Begum had been present near the tribunal after appearing before it and could have been informed about the decision.The court further said that withholding the certified copy prevented her from knowing the tribunal’s decision and taking timely legal action.“The court is satisfied from the nature of action taken by the learned Tribunal that the element of malice in law on part of the learned Tribunal is apparent on the face of record,” the bench observed observed.The court directed the Assam government to pay Rs 2 lakh as interim compensation to Begum’s husband within 60 days of receiving a certified copy of the order. It clarified that the payment would not prevent him from seeking further compensation before a civil court.The court also directed police authorities across Assam to ensure that a person declared a foreigner is informed about the tribunal’s opinion and given a free copy before being taken into custody. If the person is shifted outside the district, an adult family member must also be informed.The Home and Political Department was directed to inquire into when the May 30 opinion was prepared. The court said the tribunal’s computer could be seized and sent for forensic examination, if required, to determine when the opinion was finally prepared.The court also directed authorities to make efforts to locate Begum in Bangladesh and bring her back to India so that she can exercise her legal remedy against the tribunal’s opinion. The matter has been listed for September 24, 2026.
About The Author
