The Supreme Court on Tuesday intervened in a controversial deportation case from Assam, staying the removal of a Muslim woman, Jaynab Bibi, who had been labeled a “foreigner” despite submitting extensive documentation supporting her Indian citizenship.
A bench comprising Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Vinod Chandran issued a directive to the Union Government, ordering that “no coercive steps shall be taken” against Bibi, pending further examination of her case. The next hearing is set for August 25, following a formal response from the Centre.
Represented by advocates Fuzail Ahmed and Akanksha Rai, Bibi argued she was born in India and has lived her entire life in Muamari village, located in Assam’s Nagaon district. Her plea challenges a February 2025 decision by the Gauhati High Court, which upheld the Foreigners Tribunal’s declaration that she was an illegal immigrant.
Despite presenting multiple official records—including her grandfather’s name in the 1951 National Register of Citizens (NRC), her parents’ names in the 1965 and 1970 voter rolls, and her own entries in later electoral rolls—the tribunal still ruled against her. Her lawyers also pointed to valid gram panchayat certificates that trace her lineage, accusing the authorities of disregarding admissible evidence.
Citing a Supreme Court judgment from July 11, 2024, the petitioner’s counsel emphasized that suspicions alone cannot justify declaring someone a foreigner, and that the burden of proof lies with the government. That ruling had criticized the opaque and arbitrary manner in which people in Assam were being identified as illegal immigrants.
This case adds to mounting concerns around Assam’s controversial handling of alleged undocumented residents, especially its push-back strategy of deporting individuals—sometimes Indian citizens—across the Bangladesh border without proper legal procedure.
In February, the Supreme Court had already reprimanded the Assam government for detaining so-called “foreigners” indefinitely and urged faster, legally sound deportation processes. By March, the state reported that 13 of 63 individuals held at the Matia transit camp had been deported.
The state’s policies have drawn legal challenges, most notably from the All BTC Minority Students Union (ABMSU), which accused the government of arbitrary deportations without proper Foreigners Tribunal rulings or verification of nationality. The Supreme Court, however, declined to hear their petition on June 2, directing them to the Gauhati High Court.
In another parallel case, the Court issued notice in response to a petition from a man contesting the detention of his mother by Assam police, suggesting growing judicial concern over procedural lapses in such detentions.
Meanwhile, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma has defended the state’s actions in the legislative assembly. He claimed that over 330 individuals had already been expelled under the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950, which, according to him, empowers district commissioners to issue deportation orders without the need for court approval.
Opposition leaders, including Debabrata Saikia, have strongly criticized the state’s approach. Saikia accused the government of targeting Indian Muslims under the guise of identifying illegal immigrants and warned that the practice amounts to harassment and denial of due process.
As the Supreme Court continues to examine the legal and constitutional validity of Assam’s deportation policies, Jaynab Bibi’s case has become emblematic of the broader human and legal costs of the state’s aggressive foreigner identification campaign.
