The Supreme Court has agreed to examine a petition filed by the family of a woman who was allegedly unlawfully detained in Assam and potentially deported to Bangladesh as part of the state government's ongoing operations to remove individuals declared as illegal foreigners. The case highlights concerns about the implementation of deportation procedures while legal appeals remain pending.

Manowara Begum's citizenship struggle began during Assam's National Register of Citizens exercise, where she presented documentation from a village head certifying her Indian nationality and migration to Assam before 1971. Despite this evidence, a foreigners' tribunal in 2015 dismissed the validity of her citizenship documents and classified her as an illegal immigrant who entered India after the March 20, 1971 cutoff date.

Following the tribunal's decision, Begum was confined to the Foreigners Detention Centre in Kokrajhar in 2016. Her family subsequently approached the Gauhati High Court and later the Supreme Court seeking relief. After spending three years in detention, she was granted bail and released in December 2019 following Supreme Court orders.

The Supreme Court had also validated the village head's letter as legitimate identity documentation in 2017 and directed the High Court to reconsider her appeal against the foreigners' tribunal decision. This established legal precedent supported her case and provided grounds for challenging the original tribunal ruling.

However, on May 25, local police summoned Begum to Dhubri police station ostensibly to answer questions but subsequently detained her. When family members, including her son, arrived at the station with court documents demonstrating her pending Supreme Court appeal, they were dismissed without explanation or access to Begum.

During Monday's Supreme Court hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal represented the family before a vacation bench, expressing concerns that Begum may have been forcibly removed from India and sent to Bangladesh. Sibal questioned the police authority's decision to detain someone whose petition remained under Supreme Court consideration.

Sibal emphasized the irregularity of the situation, noting that the appeal had been pending since 2017 and questioning how local police officials could unilaterally decide to remove someone while their case remained before the highest court. He argued that the Superintendent of Police had overstepped authority by taking such action.

The bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma, initially showed hesitation about addressing the matter, questioning whether they could intervene if the individual was no longer within the country. However, Sibal contended that the court possessed authority to order police disclosure of Begum's current status and ensure her protection if she remained in detention.

The petition, submitted by Begum's son, detailed their communication with the Superintendent of Police (Border) in Dhubri, reiterating that his mother had been released under Supreme Court orders and that her civil appeal remained pending before the top court. The family emphasized the ongoing legal proceedings and the impropriety of detention during active litigation.

The plea expressed serious concerns about arbitrary and unlawful detention, highlighting the risk of forced deportation to Bangladesh despite the pending judicial determination of her citizenship status. The family argued that such actions violated legal procedures and constitutional protections while matters remained under court consideration.

In response to these arguments, the Supreme Court has issued formal notice to the Assam government, Assam Police, and the Superintendent of Police (Border), requiring them to respond to the allegations and provide clarification about Begum's current status and treatment. The case is scheduled for detailed hearing in July.

This case occurs within the broader context of Assam's efforts to identify and remove individuals classified as illegal immigrants by state foreigners' tribunals, with authorities citing Supreme Court directives regarding deportation of undocumented migrants. The situation raises important questions about procedural safeguards and the balance between immigration enforcement and individual rights during ongoing legal proceedings.