Gujarat High Court Dismisses Habeas Corpus Plea; Upholds Deportation Order Against Bangladeshi National

The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by an Indian citizen challenging the detention of his Bangladeshi wife and their infant daughter, holding that the confinement was lawful as it was effected pursuant to a valid deportation order issued under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, and the Immigration and Foreigners Order, 2025.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak heard the petition. The petitioner, an Indian national, alleged that his wife and minor daughter had been illegally detained by the authorities. Following the issuance of notice, the corpus — the wife and child — were produced before the court.

What statutory provisions authorize the detention of a foreigner pending deportation in India?

The court relied on Section 8(b) of the Immigration and Foreigners Order, 2025, read with Section 7(2)(f)(iii) of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025. These provisions empower the civil authority to impose restrictions on the movement of a foreigner and direct residence at a specified place until deportation is completed.

The State filed an affidavit establishing that the petitioner's wife is a citizen of Bangladesh. Based on this nationality, the Superintendent of Police, Bharuch, and the Foreigners Registration Office, Bharuch, passed an order on December 20, 2025. The order, issued in exercise of powers under the cited statutory provisions, directed the wife to reside at the Police Training School, Police Headquarters, Kali Talavadi, Bharuch, pending the completion of deportation proceedings.

The Bench noted that the order dated December 20, 2025, had never been challenged by the petitioner before any appropriate forum. The affidavit further stated that the detenu had been provided all facilities, including medical examinations, as per the Standard Operating Procedure.

Judicial Reasoning on Legality of Detention

The court observed that the personal liberty of the corpus and the minor daughter was not in jeopardy in view of the facts disclosed in the affidavit-in-reply, which were supported by orders passed in accordance with law. The Bench concluded that the detention could not be termed illegal or unlawful, as it flowed directly from a valid executive order issued under the governing immigration statutes.

Accordingly, the court refused to entertain the habeas corpus petition and dismissed the plea.

The judgment reinforces the principle that detention pursuant to a valid deportation order under the immigration framework does not constitute illegal confinement, provided the statutory procedures are followed and the order remains unchallenged.