‘Religious Persecution Narrative a Media Myth’: Gauhati HC Warns of Demographic Threat

The Gauhati High Court recently dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by a man seeking the release of his mother, a declared foreign national, while strongly observing that claims of “religious persecution” in Assam are part of a “misinformation warfare” against the state and the country.

The division bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund made the observation in an order dated August 21, 2025.

The petitioner namely Abdul Mozid Ali, a resident of Dhubri district, had approached the court after his mother, Jarina Bibi @ Jarina Khatun, was taken into custody again on May 24, 2025, by Gauripur police and lodged in the Holding Centre at Charaikhola, Kokrajhar.

Jarina Bibi had been declared a foreign national by the Foreigners Tribunal in Dhubri in 2012. Her challenge to the tribunal’s decision was dismissed by the high court in 2015, and a subsequent appeal and review petition met the same fate in 2017 and 2019. She was detained in Kokrajhar Jail-cum-Detention Centre in 2015, but later released on bail in December 2019, following a Supreme Court direction to decongest detention centres during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Her son contended before the court that her re-detention was arbitrary and violated her rights under Articles 21, 22, and 39A of the Constitution. He sought her release and permission to meet her. The state, however, maintained that as a declared foreign national, she was liable to be kept in a holding centre pending expulsion and could not invoke constitutional safeguards available to citizens.

Court agreed with the state, relying extensively on the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005), which had equated unchecked migration into Assam with “external aggression.”

The bench noted that the issue of illegal immigration had altered Assam’s demography, fueled student agitations, and raised grave security concerns.

“It may be stated that it is perhaps a wrong perception in a section of media report projecting that a religious persecution is going on in the State of Assam, which appears to be an example of misinformation warfare being carried out against the Country in general and the State of Assam in particular,” the judges remarked.

Court recalled historical accounts, including Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s writings that spoke of Eastern Pakistan’s expansionist interest in Assam, to underline the strategic risks posed by illegal migration. It also cited reports by former Assam Governor Lt. Gen. S.K. Sinha, which had warned that the unabated influx of migrants threatened to reduce indigenous Assamese to a minority in their own state.

Addressing the petitioner’s reliance on constitutional provisions, the bench referred to Hans Muller of Nurenburg (1955), where the Supreme Court upheld the Union government’s absolute discretion to expel foreigners. It clarified that a declared foreign national cannot claim the protections of Article 22, including the right to be produced before a magistrate. “A declared foreign national cannot claim constitutional safeguards meant for citizens. What is guaranteed is only the right to life, not the right to reside, move freely, or engage in any vocation in India,” the court said.

The judges further noted that the bail granted in 2019 was a temporary relief due to the pandemic and did not prevent the state from resuming custody later. They emphasised that detention in holding centres cannot be equated with criminal arrest under the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

"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 projected mother of the petitioner," court said. 

Court added that even the United States is grappling with illegal immigration, though it refrained from commenting on its measures.

Court emphasised that the petitioner knew that his mother is a declared foreign national, yet he had not explained why she should receive constitutional rights reserved for citizens.

Granting such rights would give her an undue premium despite her status as a declared foreign national and not an Indian citizen, the bench opined. 

Moreover, court underscored that upon declaration of a person as an “illegal migrant” into India (Assam) from specified territory, his/her status can be compared to as an “alien” and therefore, such illegal migrant would be excluded from protection under Article 22 of the Constitution of India by virtue of exclusion clause under clause (3) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India.

Concluding the matter, the bench dismissed the habeas corpus petition, holding that no constitutional rights of Jarina Bibi had been violated. It also urged the government to frame a clear policy on the expulsion of foreigners declared by tribunals in Assam.

Case Title: Abdul Mozid Ali Vs. The Union Of India And Others

Order Date: August 21, 2025

Bench: Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund