the news now

The world's news, cross-checked among reputable sources.

Gauhati High Court Orders Assam Government to Pay Compensation After Woman Pushed into Bangladesh

2 sources · India

Who reported this

  • The Hindu India · Centre-left · Kasturi & Sons (family-owned)
  • Hindustan Times India · Centre-right · HT Media (KK Birla group)

What the colours mean

  • Left
  • Centre-left
  • Centre
  • Centre-right
  • Right
  • A hatched block means the outlet is affiliated with, or controlled by, a state.

Political lean describes where an outlet sits within the politics of its own country. It is never a position on a single global scale.

Political lean is comparable inside one country and not across them, which is why the bar groups by country first. Publicly funded broadcasters are not marked as state-linked.

The owner of each outlet is listed as a matter of record, not as a judgement about the outlet.

Every source for this story reports from India.

The Gauhati High Court has directed the Assam government to pay 2 lakh rupees as interim compensation to the husband of Mumtaz Begum, a Bengali origin Muslim woman who was expelled to Bangladesh. This ruling marks the first time a court has imposed a financial cost on the state for pushing a person across the border in violation of deportation rules. The order follows a habeas corpus petition filed by the woman's husband, Mujammel Hoque.

According to court findings, Ms. Begum was declared a foreigner by a Foreigners Tribunal in Nagaon. The court noted that she was arrested and expelled without being given the opportunity to challenge the tribunal's decision, which constitutes a direct violation of standard operating procedures. The bench observed that the state machinery prevented her from exercising her right to approach the High Court. The court has impleaded the Ministry of External Affairs and advised it to attempt to locate Ms. Begum in Bangladesh and expatriate her back to India.

Further directives from the court include an inquiry by the Assam Home and Political Department into the timing of the tribunal's order. The court suggested that the tribunal member's computer could be seized to establish when the opinion was written. Additionally, the court ordered that declared foreign nationals must be informed of tribunal orders before being taken into custody and that an adult family member must be notified before a person is removed from the district.

Reporting on the event differed slightly in focus. A center left source emphasized the court's observation of malice in law on the part of the tribunal. A center right source provided more detail on the timeline of the woman's legal challenges and her claims regarding ancestral voter lists prior to 1971.

How each side framed it

Centre-left
Focused on the court's finding of malice in law and the violation of legal rights.
Centre-right
Provided more specific biographical details and the chronological sequence of the deportation process.

Sources

100% of the statements in this article were traced back to the source articles listed above.