Introduction:

In a significant decision aimed at safeguarding fundamental rights, the Gauhati High Court, in the case Musstt. Nur Begum v. Union of India & Ors., ordered the immediate release of a declared foreigner, Hachinur @ Hasinur, who had been taken into custody by the Border Police of Goalpara on May 25, 2025, despite a prior bail granted by the Court on June 7, 2021. The petition, filed by the mother of the detenue, challenged the legality of her son’s continued detention at the Kokrajhar Holding Centre under circumstances she described as a gross violation of judicial orders and a direct infringement of his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Division Bench comprising Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Malasri Nandi heard the habeas corpus plea and strongly condemned the State’s failure to uphold the Court’s earlier bail order, emphasizing that such unauthorized detention amounted to judicial overreach and blatant disregard for constitutional protections. The ruling reaffirmed that liberty, once granted through judicial process, cannot be arbitrarily curtailed by administrative or police actions unless supported by fresh judicial scrutiny, thus reiterating the Court’s role as a constitutional sentinel in matters involving personal freedom and state accountability.

Arguments of the Petitioner:

The petitioner, Musstt. Nur Begum, the mother of the detenue, approached the High Court through a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the detention of her son who had been arrested by the Border Police of Goalpara on May 25, 2025, and lodged in the Kokrajhar Holding Centre located at the 7th Assam Police Battalion, Charaikhula. The petitioner contended that her son had already been granted bail by the Gauhati High Court on June 7, 2021, and since then had strictly adhered to the bail conditions, particularly the requirement of weekly reporting to the local police station. She argued that no fresh order revoking or modifying the earlier bail had been passed, and therefore, the recent arrest was entirely illegal and a flagrant violation of the High Court’s standing order. The petitioner also pointed out that no new offence had been registered against her son, and his detention was not based on any actionable cause that could justify denial of liberty already protected by the judiciary. The petitioner emphasized that her son’s regular appearances at the police station had been documented and could be verified easily, yet the authorities acted unilaterally without judicial permission or investigation into his compliance. She submitted that the detention constituted a grave breach of his right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and that such actions by the executive were tantamount to undermining the sanctity of judicial authority. She further implored the Court to protect the rights of individuals declared as foreigners, who, even if facing certain restrictions, remain under the umbrella of constitutional protections until and unless deported by due process.

Arguments of the Respondents:

Representing the State and its agencies, the Standing Counsel for Foreigners Tribunal (FT) matters initially submitted during the hearing on June 6, 2025, that the detenue was currently lodged at the Kokrajhar Holding Centre. No further explanation was provided for his re-arrest despite the existence of a prior bail order. The State counsel acknowledged that a bail order had indeed been passed earlier in 2021, but offered no satisfactory rationale for the fresh custody action by the Border Police. When the case was taken up for further hearing on June 11, the Bench queried whether the detenue had been complying with the bail conditions. The Court, exercising caution, directed the Officer-in-Charge of the Goalpara Police Station to verify the petitioner’s claim regarding her son’s regular reporting to the police station. However, when the matter came up again on June 16, the State counsel was unable to present any instructions or status report regarding compliance with the bail terms, and instead sought a short adjournment. This apparent inaction drew criticism from the Court, especially given the urgency and seriousness of a habeas corpus plea. The State failed to produce any evidence of bail violations or justify the sudden arrest of a person who was already under judicial protection. Instead, the conduct of the State appeared passive, if not outright negligent, in facilitating illegal custody. No counter-evidence was produced to challenge the petitioner’s assertions, and the attempt to delay proceedings was perceived by the Court as an affront to constitutional procedure and a violation of the detenue’s liberty. The State’s counsel remained silent on whether deportation proceedings had been initiated or concluded, and no fresh judicial directive ordering detention was presented. These gaps in the State’s defence ultimately reinforced the petitioner’s stand and demonstrated the administrative lapses in handling sensitive cases involving declared foreigners.

Court’s Judgment:

Delivering a strongly worded judgment, the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court comprising Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Malasri Nandi underscored the inviolable nature of fundamental rights and the necessity for the State and its enforcement agencies to strictly comply with judicial orders. The Court observed that the detenue, Hachinur @ Hasinur, had been granted bail in June 2021 by the very same Court and had since then abided by all conditions, including regular weekly appearances at the local police station. There was no finding of non-compliance nor any fresh judicial direction authorizing his re-arrest or detention. Noting that the arrest dated May 25, 2025, was not backed by any judicial warrant or revocation of the bail order, the Court declared the detention as “ex facie illegal”, stating emphatically that such action amounted to an overreach of the Court’s authority. The bench remarked: “Arrest of a person who is already on bail amounts to overreach of the orders passed by this court, and therefore, such illegal detention can’t be allowed for a minute.” The Court held that it had become the constitutional duty of the judiciary to intervene and uphold the detenue’s right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court took particular note of the petitioner’s diligence in complying with the judicial process and the absence of any contrary instructions from the State confirming non-compliance.

In rejecting the State’s plea for adjournment, the Court expressed concern over the lack of timely instructions from the Home Department to its Standing Counsel, noting that such negligence can lead to prolonged illegal detentions in direct violation of constitutional norms. As a corrective step, the Court issued a writ of habeas corpus directing the immediate release of the detenue from the Kokrajhar Holding Centre. The bench further directed the concerned authorities to report back on the implementation of the release order by Friday, thereby ensuring follow-up and accountability. Additionally, the Court allowed two family members of the detenue to meet him during the pendency of the proceedings, acknowledging the humanitarian element in cases involving wrongful detention. The judgment is not only a judicial assertion of individual liberty but also a stern reminder to enforcement agencies that bail orders passed by High Courts are sacrosanct and cannot be nullified through executive overreach. The Court reiterated that in a constitutional democracy, the rule of law and judicial mandates must be obeyed in letter and spirit, and any deviation must face stern scrutiny. The case has thus reaffirmed the judiciary’s role as the guardian of constitutional rights, especially when administrative inertia or overreach threatens the liberty of vulnerable individuals.