Mumtaz Begum, a 44-year-old woman, faces deportation to Bangladesh after a controversial tribunal ruling. The Gauhati High Court intervenes, questioning the tribunal's authority.
New Delhi, India Jul 17, 2026 ALN: In April, Mumtaz Begum’s husband received a call from her lawyer with promising news: the Gauhati High Court had referred the case of the 44-year-old Bengal-origin Muslim woman back to the foreigners tribunal in Assam’s Nagaon district.
Foreigners tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies unique to Assam that decide on matters of nationality based on documentary evidence. In 2019, the Nagaon tribunal declared Begum a foreigner, asserting she could not prove her lineage. However, the High Court set aside this ruling, citing the tribunal's failure to consider all evidence submitted by Begum.
On May 30, Begum appeared before the tribunal, where her lawyer submitted her petition. Within minutes, the tribunal member allegedly called the police and ordered Begum’s arrest without issuing any formal order. She was taken to the Juria police station, then to the office of the Nagaon superintendent of police, and subsequently to the Matia detention centre in Goalpara district.
A week later, when her husband visited the detention camp, he discovered that Begum was no longer there. Her family learned she had been deported to Bangladesh only after filing a habeas corpus petition at the Gauhati High Court.
HRA Choudhury, the senior advocate representing Begum, criticized the tribunal for exceeding its authority by sending her to jail, emphasizing that its role is limited to providing an opinion on nationality. “It is not the job of the tribunal member to hand her over to the police,” he stated, calling the conduct “objectionable and illegal.”
Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde noted that when the High Court remanded the case back to the tribunal, the question of Begum's citizenship had not yet been resolved. “The tribunal could not have ordered her arrest and detention while the matter was pending,” he asserted.
Over the last four decades, Assam’s tribunals have stripped approximately 130,000 individuals of Indian citizenship, a process criticized by courts, legal experts, and human rights groups as arbitrary and biased against the poor and marginalized.
On May 30, Mumrej Ali accompanied his parents to the Nagaon tribunal from their home in Dhingaon village, feeling hopeful about the proceedings. However, chaos ensued shortly after their lawyer approached the tribunal member. “The lawyer came to me and said that my mother would be arrested,” Ali recounted. “My mother started to weep.”
Advocate Hasina Ahmed, present at the tribunal, confirmed that Begum was arrested within 30 minutes without even providing a copy of the order. The following day, her biometrics were recorded at the Nagaon superintendent of police's office before she was sent to the detention centre.
When Ali visited the transit camp on June 8, he was informed that she had been taken away by the police to Nagaon. “Since then, her whereabouts are not known,” he lamented. “My mother vanished from police custody.”
Ali emphasized that while the High Court had not granted Begum “direct relief,” it did not authorize her arrest, merely instructing the tribunal to examine the documents. “How could she be taken away?” he questioned.
Begum’s lawyer Choudhury alleged that when Begum’s husband approached the tribunal member, he was told, “I will pass the order the way I wish.” Choudhury claimed the tribunal member was irate that the High Court had ordered a fresh consideration of the case.
On June 16, Begum’s husband filed a habeas corpus petition with the Gauhati High Court. On June 24, the Assam government informed the court that Begum had been taken to Kalainchera in Cachar district, bordering Bangladesh, and forcibly deported.
Begum’s citizenship has been under scrutiny since 1997, with her case bouncing between courts over the years. In 1997, the Election Commission revised electoral rolls, labeling three lakh residents of Assam, including Begum, as “D or doubtful” voters.
A year later, the border police of Nagaon registered a case against her based on the Election Commission's report. In 2015, the case was brought before the Nagaon foreigners tribunal, which ruled in her favor two years later, declaring her among 188 residents deemed “not foreigners.”
However, this relief was short-lived. In 2018, the Gauhati High Court took up a suo moto petition based on a letter from the Nagaon tribunal member who succeeded the official who had certified Begum as a citizen. The letter indicated that the previous member had disposed of 188 petitions, but the order sheets detailing the judicial reasoning were missing.
The High Court ordered a retrial of all cases, and when Begum returned to the tribunal, she was declared a foreigner. In 2019, she challenged this ruling in the High Court, which set aside the tribunal's judgment and remanded the matter for a fresh decision, noting the tribunal's failure to discuss critical evidence submitted by Begum.
Advocate Sauradeep Dey, who represents numerous citizenship cases in the High Court, emphasized that a tribunal’s order must be reasoned and based on a comprehensive evaluation of evidence.
To substantiate her claim of Indian citizenship, Begum submitted various documents, including a school transfer certificate indicating her birth in 1982, and certificates from her village headman and gram panchayat confirming her lineage and residency.
However, the tribunal dismissed these certificates as “invalid” due to their embossment with the national emblem of India, which is deemed illegal on unauthorized documents. Begum also provided voter lists from 1965 and 1970, including her grandfather’s name and her father’s name in land records from 1968-69, to demonstrate her family's residency prior to the cut-off date for citizenship in Assam.
The tribunal disregarded these documents, and the High Court criticized the tribunal for failing to discuss them in its April order. The court also suggested that tribunal members undergo periodic training to enhance their skills.
Despite the High Court's order, the tribunal member issued a new ruling on May 30, declaring Begum a foreigner again without addressing the merits of her documents. Advocate Hasina Ahmed remarked that the new tribunal order mirrored the previous one, as the tribunal failed to examine the evidence as instructed by the High Court.
When the habeas corpus petition was heard on June 19, the High Court directed authorities to ascertain Begum’s whereabouts and prohibited her deportation without a court order. However, six days later, the government informed the court that Begum had already been forcibly removed from the country. The next hearing is scheduled for July 17.
To learn more about the latest developments in Political Controversies, stay updated with our exclusive reports and analyses on AiLensNews.
