SUPREME COURT STAYS DEPORTATION OF WOMEN FROM ASSAM, DIRECTS GOVERNMENT NOT TO TAKE ANY COERCIVE STEPS

Supreme Court stays deportation of Woman from Assam, directs government not to take any coercive steps.
By filling a SLP(C) the petitioner Jaynab Bibi has claimed that generations of her family have lived in Assam and have documents to prove their Indian nationality.The court had made it a point to state that the onus was on the authority to provide necessary information to back their suspicion about the nationality of a person.The Supreme Court onTuesday, 24th June 2025 stayed the deportation of a woman as a “foreigner” who claimed that generations of her family have lived in Assam and have documents to prove their Indian nationality. On Diary No 20270/2025 , A Partial Court Working Days Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice K. Vinod Chandran ordered the Union government to not take any coercive steps against Jaynab Bibi, represented by advocates Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi and Akansha Rai. Ms. Bibi said she was a citizen by birth, born and brought up at Mahmari Pathar village under Dhing Mouza in Nagaon District of Assam. Mr. Ayyubi said the Foreigners Tribunal had declared his client a foreigner in an “arbitrary and mechanical manner”, and the decision was confirmed by the Gauhati High Court in February 2025.The lawyers referred to a 2024 decision of the Supreme Court, in which the court had touched upon the “clandestine manner” in which the people in Assam were being randomly suspected as foreigners without any cogent evidence.
The court had made it a point to state that the onus was on the authority to provide necessary information to back their suspicion about the nationality of a person. Mere suspicion would not do, Mr. Ayyubi had referred to the apex court order. The petitioner argued that the NRC list of 1951 had the name of the petitioner’s grandfather, as did the voters’ lists of 1965 and 1970. Likewise, the voters’ lists of 1989, 1997 had the names of her parents, while subsequent lists had her name and that of her husband. Yet, she was declared an “illegal immigrant.The petitioner also drew the court’s attention to how the Tribunal and the High Court did not weigh in the fact that she had records of the gram panchayat establishing her lineage. She argued that the Supreme Court, in a reported decision, had held that certificates issued by gram panchayats were admissible to establish legacy linkage provided the records were proven authentic and duly verified. The Bench listed the case for August 25 to hear the response of the Union government, which a formal notice issued