Assam woman appeals to Indian Supreme Court after deportation despite family’s Indian citizenship
Aheda Khatun, a 44-year-old Muslim widow, was declared a non-Indian by a Foreigners’ Tribunal in September 2019, which said she had failed to establish a link between herself and her Indian ancestors. The ruling came despite her submission of nine documents that she said demonstrated her Indian lineage
An Indian woman from the northeastern state of Assam has appealed to the Supreme Court after she was declared a foreigner and deported to Bangladesh, despite her parents and siblings being recognised as Indian citizens, court documents show.
Aheda Khatun, a 44-year-old Muslim widow, was declared a non-Indian by a Foreigners' Tribunal in September 2019, which said she had failed to establish a link between herself and her Indian ancestors. The ruling came despite her submission of nine documents that she said demonstrated her Indian lineage, says the Times of India.
The documents included voter lists from 1965, 1970, 1985 and 1997 showing the names of her parents, a registered 2010 gift deed relating to ancestral land inherited by her father, school certificates and testimony from her headmaster, and a certificate issued by the village head, known as a Gaonburah.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
The tribunal rejected the Gaonburah certificate, treating it as a fake document on the grounds that it bore the State Emblem. According to her lawyer, the rejection occurred even though the issuing authority appeared before the tribunal to confirm the document's authenticity.
After being held in a detention camp, Khatun approached the Gauhati High Court in 2025, seeking a re-examination of the tribunal's order. The High Court dismissed her petition, citing a six-year delay in filing the case, without examining the merits of the citizenship evidence. She was subsequently pushed into Bangladesh by authorities.
The Supreme Court has since issued a notice to the Assam government in response to Khatun's petition.
Her case raises questions over whether citizenship documents can be rejected on technical grounds, including the use of the State Emblem, and whether High Courts are constitutionally required to examine the merits of tribunal orders affecting an individual's life and liberty, even when petitions are filed late.
The petition also challenges the validity of a 1998 police reference that initiated the proceedings against her, which Khatun alleges was made without her knowledge or involvement. Her case is supported by an affidavit from her brother, who is a civil police officer.
