Supreme Court Stays Deportation Of Four Women Declared As Foreigners By Assam Tribunal
This one ties straight into citizenship and your constitutional GK. The Supreme Court has stayed the deportation of four women who were declared foreigners by a Foreigners Tribunal in Assam. The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice V. Mohan issued notice to the Assam Government, the Union Government and the Election Commission, asking for replies in four weeks. So basically, the court is pausing the removal while it examines whether due process was followed. What this really means is that even a tribunal's finding can be tested for fairness. Bottom line for the exam, connect this with Foreigners Tribunals, the NRC in Assam, and the right to life under Article 21.
The Supreme Court today(May 5) stayed the deportation of four foreign persons who have been detained by the Foreigners Tribunal in Assam. These areBasiram Nessa, Musstt Nureza Begum, Saleha Khatun and Sarbhanu Begum.
A bench comprisingJustice Vikram Nath and Justice V Mohanastayed the order, issuing notice to the Assam Government, the Union Government and the Election Commission of India. It has sought a response from them within four weeks.
Saleha Khatun, 50 years old and illiterate, has been languishing in Goalpara detention camp since March 2. She has stated that she is being deported after the Foreigners Tribunal at Darrang declared her a foreign national, which has been affirmed by the Gauhati High Court.
As per her plea, she has produced evidence before the tribunal that she is the daughter of Indian parents, Ahsan Ali and Lt. Korpuljan, whose names are there in the pre-1971 electoral records of village Nagabandha, District Nagaon, Assam. She said that she has produced the evidence, including NRC legacy details for her father, voter lists, Gaonburan and Gaon Panchayat as her linkage certificates, family electoral documents and oral testimony of her sister to establish continuity of residence and lineage.
However, the tribunal on December 13, 2028, rejected her claim on account of human errors and discrepancies in the family particulars, age and collateral details. It has also rejected her link certificates because the certificate issuing authority was not examined.
In the case of Sarbhanu Begum, she claims to be an illiterate domestic worker, aged about 50 years, who is similarly languishing in the detention camp.
In her plea, it has been stated that she is the daughter of the late Mia Hussain, whose name is reflected in the pre-1971 electoral records of the village of Barkur, District Darrang, Assam. She has also furnished her documents and testimonies of independent witnesses to establish continuity of residence and lineage. She says the tribunal rejected her claims primarily on the account of a mistake in her spelling, such as "Surbhanu/Sorbhanu/Saharbhanu'. Her claim was also rejected because of a discrepancy in one electoral entry relating to her husband's name.
In the case ofNureza Begum, she states that an ex parte order was passed by the tribunal declaring her a foreign national. She claims to be illiterate, living below the poverty line. On the receipt of notice, she had appeared before the tribunal, where she was asked to sign a register. She had put her signature in the register and left, thinking everything was over, but then the tribunal went on to pass an ex parte order. The High Court upheld the order, stating that once the notice was issued to her, she understood what the proceedings were against her. It acknowledged that it was her legal counsel to be claimed, but stated that since she was negligent, no Court can come to her rescue.
As for Basiran's case, she claims to have produced voters lists from 1965 and 1989 indicating the names of her grandfather and father, respectively, along with certificates by the local Gaonburah, which, as per her, certified that she is a daughter of Zakir Hussain and subsequently married Osman Gani. It is her case that the tribunal held that she failed to prove that she was the daughter of her father.
She had approached the Supreme Court alleging total non-consideration of the documentary evidence by the tribunal. By an order dated January 17, 2020, the Court permitted her to file a review petition before the Gauhati High Court. But she could not be given any relief.
Case Details: SALEHA KHATUN v UNION OF INDIA AND ORS|Diary No. 32656-2026, SARBHANU BEGUM v UNION OF INDIA AND ORS|Diary No. 32624-2026; BASIRAN NESSA FUZAIL v UNION OF INDIA AND ORS | Diary No. 23338-2026 and MUSSTT NUREZA BEGUM v THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS|
AoR Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi has filed the SLPs for Saleha, Sarbhanu and Basiran.