The Gauhati high court has directed the Assam government to pay ₹ 2 lakh as interim compensation to the husband of Mumtaz Begum, a Bengali-speaking Muslim woman who was pushed into Bangladesh after a foreigners tribunal declared her a foreign national.
This is the first such instance where a court has imposed a cost on the state for pushing a person into Bangladesh, in violation of deportation rules. The order was passed by a bench of justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Susmita Phukan Khaund while hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Begum’s husband Mujammel Hoque, a resident of Juria in Nagaon district. Foreigners tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies unique to Assam that adjudicates on matters of citizenship of those marked as suspected foreigners by the border police or those listed as doubtful voters (D-voters) in electoral rolls. In light of the proceedings, the bench directed district superintendents of police to ensure that declared foreign nationals are informed of tribunal orders before being taken into custody.
The bench noted that Begum and her family was not informed of the May 30 order, observing that not providing a copy of the tribunal’s order to Begum or her family members or failure to inform them about her expulsion, were procedural lapses on the part of the state machinery and police.
Also, an adult family member must be informed before the person is removed from the district.
Hoque moved the high court in June after failing to locate his wife at the detention camp meant for people declared foreign nationals by the foreigners tribunals, at Matia in Goalpara district. The bench directed the state government to pay the amount within 60 days and ruled that the petitioner could seek more relief from a civil court.
“As the detenue (the woman) has been expelled out of India without providing any information to the petitioner (the woman’s husband) or any adult family member… as an interim palliative measure, the court is inclined to direct the Assam government to pay an interim compensation of ₹ 2 lakh to the petitioner,” the bench said in its order dated September 3.
