Court Finds “Malice in Law” in Foreigners Tribunal Process; MEA Told to Trace and Bring Her Back to India
September 10, 2026: In a strong indictment of the manner in which citizenship and deportation proceedings were handled in Assam, the Gauhati High Court has directed the Assam government to pay ₹2 lakh in interim compensation to the husband of Mumtaz Begum, a Bengali-speaking Muslim woman who was pushed into Bangladesh without her family being informed and without being given a meaningful opportunity to challenge the Foreigners Tribunal’s decision.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund, in its September 3 order, expressed serious concern over the conduct of the Foreigners Tribunal and the authorities involved in Begum’s detention and expulsion. The court found that the circumstances disclosed an apparent element of “malice in law” and held that she had effectively been deprived of her opportunity to challenge the tribunal’s opinion.
Begum had earlier been declared a foreigner by a tribunal in Nagaon. The Gauhati High Court had subsequently set aside the earlier tribunal opinion and ordered a fresh decision after finding that important evidence had not been properly considered. When the case was reconsidered, Begum was taken into custody. Her family was not properly informed, and she was subsequently sent across the international border into Bangladesh.
The High Court was particularly critical of the failure to provide Begum, or an adult member of her family, a copy of the tribunal’s opinion. The court said this prevented her from exhausting her legal remedy before being expelled.
In a significant safeguard, the Bench directed authorities across Assam to ensure that anyone declared a foreigner is informed of the tribunal’s opinion and given a free copy before being taken into custody. Authorities must also inform an adult family member before the person is moved outside the district.
The court has also brought the Ministry of External Affairs into the case and directed that efforts be made to locate Begum in Bangladesh and facilitate her return to India so that she can challenge the tribunal’s decision.
The ruling carries significance beyond the ₹2 lakh compensation. The court also underscored that Article 21 of the Constitution protects life and personal liberty not only of Indian citizens but of non-citizens as well.
The case now raises a fundamental question: when the State decides a person’s fate, who protects that person when the State itself fails to follow due process? Human beings, inconveniently enough, still have constitutional rights even when bureaucracy would apparently prefer paperwork to answer for them.
JANPATH NEWS NETWORK (JNN)
Independent. Fearless. On the People’s Path.
