Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/16 vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors on 8 January, 2026
Author: K.R. Surana
Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana
Page No.# 1/16
GAHC010283162025
2026:GAU-AS:483-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/7358/2025
AWAL ALI ALIAS MD. AWAL HUSSAIN
S/O- SHAH ALOM, PERMANENT ADDRESS- VILL AND P.O. MAGURMARI,
P.S. RUPAHIHUT, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM, PRESENT ADDRESS- VILL.-
RONGPUR CHARIALI, P.O., P.S. AND DIST. SIVASAGAR, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY
OF HOME AFFAIRS, SASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110001.
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
HOME AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
SIVASAGAR
ASSAM
PIN- 785640.
4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
SIVASAGAR
ASSAM
PIN- 785640
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, J M SULAIMAN
Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., GA, ASSAM
Page No.# 2/16
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA
ORDER
Date : 08.01.2026 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. J.M. Sulaiman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Katakey, learned CGC; Mr. J. Payeng, learned standing counsel for the FT, Mr. G. Sharma, learned standing counsel for NRC, and Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Junior Govt. Advocate.
2) The petitioner namely, Awal Ali @ Md. Awal Hussain was declared to be a foreigner, who had entered Assam illegally after 24.03.1971 and thus, liable to be sent back with further direction that he be taken into custody and kept as internee under Section 4 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 in an appropriate case till he is pushed back. The petitioner had unsuccessfully assailed the said opinion before this Court by filing WP(C) 2808/2017, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 04.09.2017. The petitioner had thereafter, approached the Supreme Court of India and the Supreme Court of India vide order dated 05.03.2019, passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 6609/2019, though condoned the delay, but expressing disinclination to interfere with the order, the said Leave Petition was dismissed.
3) From the statements made in the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner was taken into custody. However, in view of the COVID-19 pandemic, he was released on bail. It is projected that the petitioner has not misused the bail. However, on 24.05.2025, he was again taken into custody and is presently lodged at the Transit Camp, Matia, Goalpara.
Page No.# 3/16
4) The petitioner has filed an application before the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Home & Political Department for allowing the petitioner to go on bail. However, as no action has been taken on the said representation, the present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5) While the learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed his prayer for releasing the petitioner on bail, the learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters has opposed the prayer made in the present writ petition.
6) At the outset, it may be stated that once a person has been declared to be a foreigner, who has illegally entered into India without any documents by virtue of opinion rendered by the Foreigners Tribunal having jurisdiction, upon reference made by the competent authority, the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Home & Political Department is not vested with any authority in law to grant bail to such illegal migrant. Therefore, as the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 29.10.2025 to the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Home & Political Department purportedly on 03.11.2025, who does not have power or jurisdiction to grant bail to the petitioner, this writ petition would not be maintainable as no direction can be issued to direct the respondent authorities to release the petitioner on bail.
7) Therefore, the Court is inclined to examine as to whether the petitioner has been able to make out any case for this Court to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the respondent authorities to release the petitioner on bail.
8) In the said context, it may be stated that this Court in judgment Page No.# 4/16 and order dated 06.01.2026, passed in W.P.(Crl.) 60/2025, has elaborately dealt with the issue of illegal influx of migrants from specified territory i.e., East Pakistan prior to 24.03.1971 and Bangladesh after 25.03.1971, which is altering the demography of the State. Moreover, by referring to the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case Hans Muller of Nurenburg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail, Calcutta & Ors., (1955) 0 Supreme(SC) 15: AIR 1955 SC 367, the said case is one under Section 3(1)(b) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. In that case, a German national was taken into preventive detention in order to make arrangement of his expulsion from India, which required satisfaction to be recorded by the competent authority under Section 3(1)(b) of the said Act. While deciding the issue, a passing reference was made to the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946. It would be appropriate to quote paragraphs 34 to 37, 40 and 41 thereof hereinbelow [extracted from Supreme Today - (1955) 0 Supreme(SC) 15]:-
34. Article19 of the Constitution confers certain fundamental rights of freedom on the citizens of India, among them, the right "to move freely throughout the territory of India" and "to reside and settle in any part of India"
subject only to laws that impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of those rights in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe. No corresponding rights are given to foreigners. All that is guaranteed to them is protection to life and liberty in accordance with the laws of the land. This is conferred by Art. 21 which is in the following terms:-
"No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law."
35. Entries 9,10, 17,18, and 19 in the Union List confer wide powers on the Centre to make laws about, among other things, admission into and expulsion from India, about extradition and aliens and about preventive detention connected with foreign affairs. Therefore, the right to make laws about the extradition of aliens and about their expulsion from the land is expressly conferred; also, it is to be observed that extradition and expulsion are contained in separate entries indicating that though they may overlap in certain aspects, they are different and distinct subjects. And that brings us to the Foreigners Act which deals, among Page No.# 5/16 other things, with expulsion and the Extradition Act which regulates extradition.
36. The Foreigners Act confers the point to expel foreigners from India. It would the Central Government with absolute and unfettered discretion and, as there is no provision fettering this discretion in the Constitution, an unrestricted right to expel remains.
37. The law of extradition is quite different. Because of treaty obligations it confers a right on certain countries (not all) to ask that persons who are alleged to have committed certain specified offences on the territory or who have already been convicted of those offences by their courts, he handed over to them in custody for prosecution or punishment. But despite that the Government of India is not bound to comply with the request and has an absolute and unfettered discretion to refuse.
* * *
39. The Extradition Act is really a special branch of the law of Criminal Procedure. It deals with criminals and those accused of certain crimes. The Foreigners Act is not directly concerned with criminals or crime though the fact that a foreigner has committed offences, or is suspected of that, may be a good ground for regarding him as undesirable. Therefore, under the Extradition Act warrants or summons must be issued; there must be a magisterial enquiry and when there is an arrest it is penal in character; and- and this is the most important distinction of all - when the person to be extradited leaves India he does not leave the country a free man. The police in India hand him over to the police of the requisitioning State and he remains in custody throughout.
40. In the case of expulsion, no idea of punishment is involved, at any rate, in theory, and if a man is prepared to leave voluntarily he can ordinarily go as and when he pleases. But the right is not his. Under the Indian law, the matter is left to the unfettered discretion at the Union Government and that Government can prescribe the route and the port or place of departure and can place him on a particular ship or plane. [See Ss. 3(2)(b) and 6, Foreigners Act]. Whether the Captain of a foreign ship or plane can be compelled to take a passengerhe does not want or to follow a particular route is a matter that does not arise and we express no opinion on it. But assuming that he is willing to do so, the right of the Government to make the order vis-à-vis the man expelled is absolute.
41. This may not be the law in all countries. Oppenheim, for example, says that in England, until December 1919, the British Government had "no power to expel even the most dangerous alien without the recommendation of a court, or without an Act of Parliament making provision for such expulsion, except during war or on an occasion of imminent national danger or great emergency" (Openheim's International Law, Vol. I, 7 thedition, page 631).
Page No.# 6/16 But that is immaterial, for the law in each country is different and we are concerned with the law as it obtains in our land. Here the matter of expulsion has to be viewed from three points of view: (1) does the Constitution permit the making of such a law? (2) does it place any limits on such laws? and (3) is there in fact any law on this topic in India and if so, what does it enact? We have already examined the law making power in this behalf and its scope, and as to the third question the law on this matter in India is embodied in the Foreigners Act which gives an unfettered right to the Union Government to expel. But there is this distinction. If the order is one of expulsion, as opposed to extradition, then the person expelled leaves India a free man.
It is true he may be apprehended the moment he leaves, by some other power and consequently, in some cases, this would be small consolation to him, but in most cases the distinction is substantial, for the right of a foreign power to arrest except in its own territory and on its own boats is not unlimited. But however that may be, so far as India is concerned, there must be an order of release if he is in preventive custody and though he may be conducted to the frontier under detention he must be permitted to leave a free man and cannot be handed over under arrest.
9) Thus, the said decision of Hans Muller of Nurenburg (supra), confirms and reaffirms the absolute and unfettered power of the Government to order expulsion of a foreigner. In this case the Foreigners Tribunal, Jorhat, Assam has declared Awal Ali @ Md. Awal Hussain,the petitioner,to be "illegal migrant", who has illegally entered into India (Assam) after 25.03.1971. Thus, the petitioner isa "declared foreign national", which requires no other confirmation as per the law in force in the Country.
10) It may be stated that in the rest of the Country, except the State of Assam, it is the Executive, who can order expulsion of a foreigner/ illegal migrant. However, the illegal migrants, who have illegally entered into the territory of India (Assam) without any valid documents from the specified territory (which includes erstwhile East Pakistan before 25.03.1971 and Bangladesh after 25.03.1971) are subjected to proceedings before the jurisdictional Foreigners Tribunal. Only after being declared to be illegal Page No.# 7/16 migrants, such illegal migrants are subjected to expulsion from the Country.
11) Moreover, it is noted in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2005) 5 SCC 665, reference has been made to reference made to the 2 (two) books which are extracted below:-
a. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in his book Myths of Independence wrote - "... It would be wrong that Kashmir is the only dispute that divides India and Pakistan, though undoubtedly the most significant. One at least is nearly as important as the Kashmir dispute, that of Assam and some districts of India adjacent to East Pakistan. ..."
b. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, in his book titled Eastern Pakistan; its population & economics, has stated - "Because Eastern Pakistan must have sufficient land for its expansion and because Assam has abundant forests and mineral resources, coal, petroleum etc., Eastern Pakistan must include Assam to be financially and economically strong."
12) Therefore, as per the scheme of Section 4 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, in the event "declared foreign national" cannot be expelled due to any reason whatsoever, including the policy in force, then the only way open to the State would be to prevent a declared foreign national from getting employment, purchase land, marry Indian national, etc., perhaps by framing appropriate policy and/or by detaining such "declared foreign national" in the holding areas ear-marked for the purpose.
13) In the considered opinion of the Court, the act of the appropriate Government to apprehend a "declared foreign national" and/or "illegal migrant", who has been so declared by a Foreigners Tribunal, cannot equated to arrest as is generally understood under Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and/or the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which confers certain procedural safeguards for citizens of India, who are arrested in connection with some criminal offence.
Page No.# 8/16
14) We may also refer to quote hereinbelow paragraph nos. 74 to 79 of the case of Sarbananda Sonowal (supra):
74. We consider it necessary here to briefly notice the law regarding deportation of aliens as there appears to be some misconception about it and it has been argued with some vehemence that aliens also possess several rights and the procedure for their identification and deportation should be detailed and elaborate in order to ensure fairness to them.
75. In Introduction to International Law by J.G. Starke (1st Indian re-print 1994) in Chapter 12 (page 348), the law on the points has been stated thus: -
"Most states claim in legal theory to exclude all aliens at will, affirming that such unqualified right is an essential attribute of sovereign government. The courts of Great Britain and the United States have laid it down that the right to exclude aliens at will is an incident of territorial sovereignty. Unless bound by an international treaty to the contrary, states are not subject to a duty under international law to admit aliens or any duty thereunder not to expel them. Nor does international law impose any duty as to the period of stay of an admitted alien."
Like the power to refuse admission this is regarded as an incident of the State's territorial sovereignty. International law does not prohibit the expulsion encase of aliens. [Ed: In Introduction to International Law by J.G. Starke (1st Indian re-print 1994 (page 351)]. Reference has also been made to Article 13 of the International Covenant of 1966 on Civil and Political Rights which provides that an alien lawfully in the territory of a State party to the Covenant may be expelled only pursuant to a decision reached by law, and except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, is to be allowed to submit the reasons against his expulsion and to have his case reviewed by and to be represented for the purpose before the competent authority. It is important to note that this Covenant of 1966 would apply provided an alien is lawfully in India, namely, with valid passport, visa etc. and not to those who have entered illegally or unlawfully. Similar view has been expressed in Oppenheim's International Law (Ninth Edn. 1992 - in paragraphs 400, 401 and 413). The author has said that the reception of aliens is a matter of discretion, and every State is by reason of its territorial supremacy, competent to exclude aliens from the whole or any part of its territory. In paragraph 413 it is said that the right of States to expel aliens is generally recognized. It matters not whether the alien is only on a temporary visit, or has settled down for professional business or any other purposes on its territory, having established his domicile there. A belligerent may consider it convenient to expel all hostile nationals residing or temporarily staying within its territory;
Page No.# 9/16 although such a measure may be very harsh on individual aliens, it is generally accepted that such expulsion is justifiable. Having regard to Article 13 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, an alien lawfully in a State's territory may be expelled only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law.
76. In R. v. Bottrill, (1947) 1 K.B. 41: [1946] 2 All E.R. 434, it was said that the King under the Constitution of United Kingdom is under no obligation to admit into the country or to retain there when admitted, any alien. Every alien in the United Kingdom is there only because his presence has been licensed by the King. It follows that at common law the King can at will withdraw his license and cause the Executive to expel the alien, whether enemy or friend. For holding so reliance was placed on Attorney-General for Canada v. Cain, [1906] AC 542, where Lord Atkinson said: -
"One of the rights possessed by the Supreme power in every state is the right to refuse to permit an alien to enter that state, to annex what conditions it pleases to the permission to enter it, and to expel or deport from the state, at pleasure, even a friendly alien, especially if it considers his presence in the state opposed to its peace, order, and good government, or to its social or material interests."
In Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 1930 U.S. 581, the United States Supreme Court held:
"The power of exclusion of foreigners being an incident of sovereignty belonging to the Government of the United States, as a part of those sovereign powers delegated by the Constitution, the right to its exercise at any time when, in the judgment of the Government, the interests of the country require it, cannot be granted away or restrained on behalf of anyone. The powers of Government are delegated in trust to the United States, and are incapable of transfer to any other parties. They cannot be abandoned or surrendered. Nor can their exercise be hampered, when needed for the public good, by any considerations of private interest. The exercise of these public trusts is not the subject of barter or contract."
This principle was reiterated in Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, where the court ruled: -
"The government of each state has always the right to compel foreigners who are found within its territory to go away, by having them taken to the frontier. This right is based on the fact that, the foreigner not making part of the nation, his individual reception into the territory is matter of pure permission, of simple tolerance, and creates no obligation. The exercise of this right may be subjected, doubtless, to certain forms by the domestic laws of each country; but the right exists none the less, universally recognized and Page No.# 10/16 put in force. The order of deportation is not a punishment for crime. It is not a banishment, in the sense in which that word is often applied to the expulsion of a citizen from his country by way of punishment. It is but a method of enforcing the return to his own country of an alien who has not complied with the conditions upon the performance of which the government of the nation, acting within its constitutional authority and through the proper departments, has determined that his continuing to reside here shall depend. He has not, therefore, been deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; and the provisions of the Constitution, securing the right of trial by jury, and prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures, and cruel and unusual punishments, have no application."
77. In Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 US 652, it was adjudged that, although Congress might, if it saw fit, authorize the courts to investigate and ascertain the facts upon which the alien's right to land was made by the statutes to depend, yet Congress might entrust the final determination of those facts to an executive officer, and that, if it did so, his order was due process of law and no other tribunal, unless expressly authorized by law to do so, was at liberty to re- examine the evidence on which he acted, or to controvert its sufficiency. Thus according to United States Supreme Court the determination of rights of an alien even by Executive will be in compliance of due process of law.
78. In Louis De Raedt v. Union of India, (1991) 2 SCC 554, the two foreign nationals engaged in missionary work had come to India in 1937 and 1948 respectively with proper documents like passport and visa etc. and were continuously living here but by the order dated 8th July, 1987 their prayer for further extension of the period of stay was rejected and they were asked to leave the country by 31-7-1987. They then challenged the order by filing a writ petition. This Court held that the power of the Government of India to expel foreigners is absolute and unlimited and there is no provision in the Constitution fettering its discretion and the executive government has unrestricted right to expel a foreigner. So far as right to be heard is concerned, there cannot be any hard and fast rule about the manner in which a person concerned has to be given an opportunity to place his case.
79. In State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Khudiram Chakma, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 615, following Louis De Raedt, (1991) 3 SCC 554, it was held that the fundamental right of a foreigner is confined to Article 21 for life and liberty and does not include the right to reside and stay in this country, as mentioned in Article 19(1)(e), which is applicable only to the citizens of the country. After referring to some well-known and authoritative books on international law it was observed that the persons who reside in the territories of countries of which they are not nationals, possess a special status under international law. States reserve the right to expel them from Page No.# 11/16 their territory and to refuse to grant them certain rights which are enjoyed by their own nationals like right to vote, hold public office or to engage in political activities. Aliens may be debarred from joining the civil services or certain profession or from owning some properties and the State may place them under restrictions in the interest of national security or public order. Nevertheless, once lawfully admitted to a territory, they are entitled to certain immediate rights necessary to the enjoyment of ordinary private life. Thus, the Bangladeshi nationals who have illegally crossed the border and have trespassed into Assam or are living in other parts of the country have no legal right of any kind to remain in India and they are liable to be deported. (emphasis supplied by us)
15) When the issue of unabated influx from the specified territory is leading to demographic changes in the State, which may not be seriously impacting or affecting the rest of the Country, but is leading to widespread civil discontent in the State of Assam, it would not be permissible for constitutional safeguards available for the "citizens" of the Country to be extended to a "declared foreign national" like the petitioner.
16) Just because the petitioner has been able to stay in this Country for a long time even after reference was answered by opinion dated 24.02.2017, it cannot be accepted that the petitioner had been taken into custody arbitrarily, which is ex facie a misapplied notion.
17) Even the United States of America, one of the developed Countries, is starting to feel the pinch of illegal immigrants and the nature of steps taken by it are in public domain, on which the Court does not comment. The point is that the petitioner has knowledge that heis a declared foreign national, yet he has not pleaded in the writ petition that why and for what purpose, he expects the State to extend Constitutional rights and safeguards, reserved for citizens of the Country to a "declared foreign national", awaiting his expulsion from the Country. If any such rights are ordered, it would amount to give special premium to the petitioner after being a "declared foreign national"
Page No.# 12/16 and thus, definitely not an Indian citizen.
18) Therefore, the statement of the petitioner that the declared foreign national, has not flouted any bail condition, would not be a sufficient cause for preventing the Central Government and the State Government to take appropriate action against the said "declared foreign national" and to take steps for her expulsion from the Country.
19) The Court is unable to accept that any legal and fundamental right of the said petitioner, a "declared foreign national" purportedly under Article 14, 16, 18, 21, 22 of the Constitution of India has been violated. In terms of the decision in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal (supra), the petitioner, namely, Awal Ali @ Md. Awal Hussain, a declared foreign national, is not found to have any fundamental right in India to move freely or to reside at any place of his choice or to carry out any vocation, trade or calling of his choice.
Nonetheless, the said rights shall override the power and authority of the State to expel an illegal migrant in such manner as it may deem fit and proper.
20) The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that petitioner was on bail. It may be stated that the order for granting bail during Covid-19 pandemic period was to tide over the difficult situation of Covid-19 pandemic. The intention of the orders passed by the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts in the Country, as evident in the orders placed before the Court, is to prevent overcrowding of jails and detention centers. The pandemic situation is no longer prevailing in the State of Assam. Moreover, by none of the orders passed for granting bail to declared foreign nationals, there is a prohibition to the State Government and Government of India to expel illegal foreign migrants who have been so declared by Foreigners Tribunals in exercise of power under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, after references Page No.# 13/16 are made by the competent authority in respect of those persons who are suspected to have illegally entered into India (Assam) from the specified territory after the cut-off date of 25.03.1971.
21) The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show any provision under any law in force that a person declared to be a foreign national by Foreigners Tribunals, after being apprehended, must mandatorily be produced before the Magistrate. The learned counsel for the petitioner is perhaps under some misconception of law because the declaration of foreigner under the Foreigners (Tribunal) Orders, 1964 has civil consequences. Such detection and declaration, in the considered opinion of the Court, is not under any criminal law in force in the Country. In this regard, the observations of the Supreme Court of India in paragraph 39 of the case of Hans Muller of Nurenburg (supra), quoted hereinbefore, which has been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner declares it so. Paragraph 4 of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 is as under:
4. Powers of Foreigners Tribunals.- The Foreigners Tribunals shall have the powers of a Civil Court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), and the powers of Judicial Magistrate first class under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) in respect of the following matters, namely, -
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him or her on oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and production of any document,
(c) issuing commissions for the examination of any witness;
(d) directing the proceedee to appear before it in person;
(e) issuing a warrant of arrest against the proceedee if he or she fails to appear before it.
22) The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the procedure as prescribed under the erstwhile Criminal Procedure Code Page No.# 14/16 and/or under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is required to be followed by the Border Branch of Assam Police while dealing with the declared foreign national. The arrest and detention of a declared foreign national cannot be equated with rights of persons arrested as envisaged under Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Similarly, the submissions made with regard to rights protected under Article 22 of the Constitution, in the opinion of the Court is totally unacceptable because it cannot be believed that the declared foreign national, so declared by the Foreigners Tribunal is not aware of the reason of being taken into custody. Let us test this submission with an example. If such a submission is accepted and extended to all convictions, then can it mean that when a convict in a serious crime is apprehended after sentence, the convict can be permitted to take a plea that he is not served with grounds of arrest and documents relating to his/her arrest. The answer to the example given above would be in an emphatic "no". Similarly, once a declared foreign national is taken into custody awaiting expulsion from the Country, it is not open to such declared foreign national, whose declaration is made by the Foreigners Tribunal in the State of Assam to maintain a claim that his/her custody is illegal and vitiated by non-service of grounds of arrest, as envisaged under Article 22 of the Constitution of India and/or under Section 50 Cr.P.C., as declaration of an illegal foreigner under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 does not have any criminal consequences.
23) It may also be mentioned that under section 4 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, the competent authorities can detain or keep confined any foreigner.
The provisions of section 4 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 is extracted below:
"4. Internees. (1) Any foreigner (hereinafter referred to as an internee) in respect of whom there is in force any order made under clause (g) of sub-section Page No.# 15/16 (2) of Section 3, directing that he be detained or confined, shall be detained or confined in such place and manner and subject to such conditions as to maintenance, discipline and the punishment of offence and breaches of discipline as the Central Government may from time to time by order determine. (2) Any foreigner (hereinafter referred to as a person on parole) in respect of whom there is in force an order under clause (e) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 requiring him to reside at a place set apart for the residence under supervision of a number of foreigners, shall while residing therein be subject to such conditions as to maintenance, discipline and the punishment of offences and breaches of discipline as the Central Government may from time to time by order determine. (3) No person shall-
(a) knowingly assist an internee or a person on a parole to escape from custody or the place set apart for his residence, or knowingly harbour an escaped internee or person on parole, or
(b) give an escaped internee or person on parole any assistance with intent thereby to prevent, hinder or interfere with the apprehension of the internee or the person on parole.
4) The Central Government may by order, provide for regulating access to, and the conduct of persons in, places in India where internees or persons on parole are detained or restricted, as the case may be, and for prohibiting or regulating the dispatch or conveyance from outside such places to or for internees or persons on parole therein of such articles as may be prescribed."
24) Thus, as the authorities are bound to take consequential steps pursuant to the opinion dated 24.02.2017, passed by the learned Member, Foreigners Tribunal, Jorhat, Assam in Case No. FT/SVR/272/11, arising out of Police Enquiry No. 104/11, no case is made out to suspect any officer of the Central Government or of the State Government of taking any irresponsible, illegal or reckless act in sending back the petitioner to Bangladesh, so as to order enquiry to be made against them in respect of the present case in hand.
25) Therefore, on all counts, this writ petition fails and is thus, dismissed.
Page No.# 16/16
26) Under the circumstances, there shall be no order as to cost.
27) The learned standing counsel for the FT and Border matters shall send a downloaded copy of this order to the concerned Tribunal to make this order a part of record of the proceedings in Case No. FT/SVR/272/11.
28) Before parting with the records, it may be mentioned that the learned counsel for the petitioner had made a oral prayer to allow the family members of the petitioner to meet the petitioner in the Transit Camp, Matia, Goalpara.
29) Though the said prayer has been objected to by the learned standing counsel for the FT matters, considering the nature of the prayer, we relegate the family members of the petitioner to move with a prayer before the Superintendent of Transit Camp, Matia, Goalpara to allow family members of the petitioner to visit and meet the petitioner inside the Transit Camp, Matia, Goalpara. On such prayer is made the concerned authorities shall allow 2 (two) family members of the petitioner to meet the petitioner at Transit Camp, Matia, Goalpara.
30) In this regard, the petitioner is permitted to produce a certified copy of the order to the said authority for doing the needful.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant