The Supreme Court of India issues notice on a habeas corpus plea challenging Assam Police’s illegal detention and alleged deportation of a woman to Bangladesh. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal represents the petitioner, highlighting violations of court orders and seeking justice.

Supreme Court Issues Notice on Son’s Plea Against Assam Police Detaining Mother Over Deportation to Bangladesh

On 3 June 2025, the Supreme Court of India issued a notice regarding a habeas corpus petition challenging the Assam Police‘s alleged illegal detention of a woman amid growing concerns over deportations to Bangladesh.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal Highlights Grave Violations in Court

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioner — the woman’s 26-year-old son — argued before a bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma. Sibal stressed that despite a pending civil appeal since 2017 against a Guwahati High Court ruling affirming the woman’s status as a foreigner, the Assam Police went ahead and deported her. He argued, “There is a bail order here, a civil appeal is pending… and the lady has been thrown out. And that choice is made by a Superintendent of Police. Can your lordships conceive?”

Concerns Over Ignored Court Orders and Uncertain Whereabouts

The bench questioned the possibility of recalling the woman once deported. Justice Sharma noted, “[But] we can’t call her back… if she’s already not in the country.” Sibal challenged the Assam Police’s disregard for court orders, highlighting the petitioner’s uncertainty about his mother’s current location. He urged the court, “At least in the meantime, ask them to inform us of her location; the son is unaware… if she is in Bangladesh, that’s a different issue.”

Violation of DK Basu Guidelines and Call for Accountability

Sibal further reminded the court of the binding DK Basu guidelines, emphasizing that detainees must be produced before authorities within 24 hours. He condemned the Assam Police for allegedly picking up the woman from her home and immediately deporting her, stating, “Your lordships know she must be produced within 24 hours… not produced, sent immediately, picked up from the house… this is a direct violation of this Court’s order in DK Basu… the SP goes to the house, picks her up and throws her… how can that be!?”

Petition Seeks Directive Against ‘Push Back’ and Investigation into Assam Police

The Supreme Court bench issued notice to the respondents. The petitioner’s demands include:

• A directive prohibiting the “push back” or deportation of the detenue.
• An investigation into the State of Assam concerning arbitrary arrest and detention practices.
• Instructions to the Union and Assam governments to initiate departmental proceedings and impose damages for violations.

Conclusion

This case underscores serious concerns regarding human rights, legal safeguards, and the adherence to court orders in Assam. The Supreme Court’s intervention could set important precedents about unlawful detention and deportation, emphasizing accountability for law enforcement agencies and protection of vulnerable individuals.