Gauhati HC Refuses Release To Declared Foreigner, Citing State’s Arrangements For Her Expulsion

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioner, whose declaration as a foreigner had attained finality, was entitled to release on bail or otherwise while the State made arrangements for her expulsion.

The court held

The High Court rejected the petitioner’s prayer for release and dismissed the writ petition.

It also directed

It left the maintainability of Title Suit No. 30/2026 to the civil court and directed that the judgment be circulated to the district judiciary and sent to the Judicial Academy, Assam.

01Facts

A Foreigners Tribunal declared the petitioner a foreigner who had entered Assam after 25 March 1971, after she failed to establish her Indian citizenship.

pp. 2–4

The Gauhati High Court dismissed her challenge to that opinion in 2020; the Supreme Court dismissed her SLP in 2025 and her review petition in 2026.

pp. 2–4

The petitioner later sought release from detention, relying on Supreme Court orders concerning release of persons detained for specified periods and on a pending civil suit seeking declarations about her parentage and birth.

pp. 4–5

The State opposed release, stating that arrangements had been made for her expulsion.

pp. 4–5

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioner, whose declaration as a foreigner had attained finality, was entitled to release on bail or otherwise while the State made arrangements for her expulsion.

pp. 8–9, 14–15

ii.Whether the pending civil suit concerning the petitioner’s parentage and birth provided a ground for her release from detention.

pp. 4–5, 14–15

03Law Applied

Section 3(2)(g) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 empowers the Central Government to provide for a foreigner’s arrest and detention or confinement, while Section 4 governs the detention and conditions applicable to internees.

pp. 6–8

The Court relied on Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005) 5 SCC 665 and (2007) 1 SCC 174 for the proposition that the Foreigners Act and Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 provide a fair procedure for identifying foreigners.

pp. 9–11

It also relied on Hans Muller of Nuremberg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail, Calcutta (1995) 1 SCC 167 concerning the Government’s power to expel foreigners.

pp. 12–14

The Court discussed Bahaluddin Sheikh v. Union of India (2013) 5 GLR 325 on civil-court jurisdiction over citizenship questions, but left the maintainability of the petitioner’s particular suit to the civil court.

pp. 16–22

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 34 Section 39

Citizenship Act, 1955 Section 9 Section 18

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 9

04Reasoning

The petitioner’s foreigner status had been affirmed through the dismissal of her writ petition, SLP and review petition.

pp. 14–15, 22–23

The Court considered the State’s position that arrangements for expulsion had been made and held that Sections 3(2)(g) and 4 of the Foreigners Act supported continued detention in those circumstances; it therefore found no basis to order release under the Supreme Court orders invoked by the petitioner.

pp. 14–15, 22–23

The pending civil suit did not alter that conclusion.

pp. 16–22

Although the Court discussed the law on civil-court jurisdiction, it expressly left the suit’s maintainability for the civil court to decide without being influenced by its observations.

pp. 16–22

05Holding

The High Court rejected the petitioner’s prayer for release and dismissed the writ petition.

p. 23

It left the maintainability of Title Suit No. 30/2026 to the civil court and directed that the judgment be circulated to the district judiciary and sent to the Judicial Academy, Assam.

pp. 22–24

LawLens.Gauhati High Court

Original Court PDF