Supreme Court Halts Deportation of Assam Woman Labelled as ‘Foreigner’

The Supreme Court of India has intervened to protect Jaynab Bibi, an Assam resident declared a “foreigner” by a Foreigners Tribunal, from imminent deportation. In an order issued on Tuesday, a Bench comprising Justices K.V. Viswanathan and N. Kotiswar Singh directed the Union government to refrain from taking any coercive action against her and fixed the next hearing for 25 August 2025. The Court also issued formal notice to the Centre, signalling its intent to scrutinise the procedures that led to Bibi’s classification as an illegal immigrant.

Background of the case

Jaynab Bibi, who asserts she is an Indian citizen by birth, has lived her entire life in Muamari village under Dhing Mouza, Nagaon district, Assam. She was deemed a foreigner by a Foreigners Tribunal (FT) on 20 May 2017 under Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946. After exhausting tribunal remedies, she petitioned the Gauhati High Court, which dismissed her writ petition on 17 February 2025, upholding the FT’s verdict. Facing deportation, she approached the Supreme Court.

Arguments in the Supreme Court

Represented by advocates Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi and Akansha Rai, Bibi contended that the FT had acted in an “arbitrary and mechanical manner,” ignoring substantial documentary evidence proving her Indian lineage. Her lawyers argued that the tribunal and the High Court failed to give due weight to:

• NRC, 1951: The National Register of Citizens (NRC) from 1951 contains the name of Bibi’s grandfather, demonstrating that the family has resided in Assam since before independence.

• Voter Lists (1965, 1970): These electoral rolls include her grandfather’s name, reaffirming the family’s continuity in Assam.

• Voter Lists (1989, 1997): These contain the names of her parents, further solidifying the claim of legitimate ancestry within India.

• Subsequent Voter Lists: Bibi’s own name and her husband’s name appear in later electoral rolls, indicating continued residence and civic participation.

• Gram Panchayat Records: Certificates from the village panchayat trace her lineage, which, according to prior Supreme Court rulings, are admissible if authenticated and verified.

Legal precedent cited

Counsel relied heavily on a 2024 Supreme Court judgment, which declared that mere suspicion is insufficient to brand an individual as a foreigner and emphasised that the burden of proof lies squarely with the authorities who allege foreign nationality. The Bench has previously expressed concern over the “random and unsubstantiated” labelling of residents as foreigners in Assam—an observation that resonated with Bibi’s situation.

Key observations by the Supreme Court

Although the full reasoning will unfold in subsequent hearings, Tuesday’s stay order reflects the Bench’s preliminary view that the deportation was premature, especially given the weight of unexamined evidence. By halting deportation, the Court has preserved Bibi’s liberty and signalled that due process cannot be sacrificed for administrative expediency.

Broader context

Assam’s foreigners’ tribunals have been controversial for alleged procedural lapses and a high rate of ex parte declarations. Critics argue that poor documentation systems, linguistic barriers, and bureaucratic arbitrariness contribute to wrongful classifications. The Supreme Court’s interim relief in Bibi’s case is therefore seen as part of a broader judicial push to ensure that tribunals adhere to principles of natural justice, factual accuracy, and constitutional safeguards.

Next steps

The parties will return to court on 25 August 2025, by which time the Centre must respond to Bibi’s petition. The Supreme Court is expected to examine whether the FT and the Gauhati High Court adequately considered the evidence of her ancestry and complied with the standards set by Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and Article 14 (equality before the law). A determination in her favour could have implications for similar cases, reinforcing the evidentiary threshold required to declare a person a foreigner.

In summary, the Supreme Court’s intervention underscores its vigilance in protecting individuals from unjust deportation and its insistence that tribunals and lower courts rigorously apply constitutional and evidentiary standards before stripping anyone of citizenship rights.