Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1552
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, JJ.
Nirmal Das – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
W.P. No. 31840 of 2025
Decided On : 24-11-2025
For the Appellants : D. Udit Narayan, Rapou Bhasker
For the Respondent: Swaroop Oorilla
Court upheld the legality of detainee's confinement under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, affirming no jurisdiction for habeas corpus due to conflicting identity evidence.
Headnote:(A) Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 - Section 7(1) and (2) - Writ of Habeas Corpus - Detention of individual alleged to be foreign national - Petitioner asserts citizenship of India; however, evidence shows possession of Bangladeshi ID and Indian Passport obtained fraudulently - Court held that authorities acted within powers conferred under the 2025 Act - No grounds to issue writ for release of alleged detenu due to conflicting evidence regarding nationality. (Paras 4, 6, 8, 12)
(B) Efficacy of Alternative Remedies - Court noted that sections 15 and 16 of the 2025 Act do not provide any efficacious alternative remedy for the petitioner, as conceded by the government pleader. (Para 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought a Writ of Habeas Corpus concerning the detention of his son at the airport under suspicion of being a foreign national. The alleged detenu was apprehended while attempting to travel on a valid visa, but was found carrying evidence suggesting he was Bangladeshi.
Findings of Court:
Court concluded that detention was lawful under the provisions of the 2025 Act, and procedural requirements had been met.
Issues: Key issues included the validity of the detention under the 2025 Act and the conflicting identification documents regarding the nationality of the alleged detenu.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that due to the presence of contradictory evidence regarding the alleged detenu's citizenship, the detention was justified, and no writ of habeas corpus would be issued.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of detention case (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented by parties (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court's analysis regarding detention legality (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. dismissal of the writ petition (Para 14 , 15) |
ORDER :
1. The petitioner (father of the alleged detenu) has filed the Writ of Habeas Corpus against the action of the respondent Nos.5 to 7 (the Station House Officers of the Shamshabad Police Station, the Rajiv Gandhi International Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District and the Central Crime Police Station, Nampally, Hyderabad, respectively) in detaining the petitioner’s son (alleged detenu).
2. It is submitted that when the alleged detenu was attempting to travel to Abu Dhabi on 19.09.2025 on a Visa which had been granted by the Immigration Authorities, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, he was arrested at the Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District, on the ground that he is a citizen of Bangladesh. The petitioner claims that the alleged detenu who was born in the State of Tripura is a citizen of India. The alleged detenu had come to Hyderabad in 2005 for the purpose of earning his livelihood, and he has been doing business for the past 15 years at Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District. Hence, he could not have been detained by the official respondents.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the State-respondents.
4. The learned Special Government Pleader has filed his Written Instructions which indicate that the petitioner has been lodged at the Shelter Home for illegal immigrants at the Central Crime Station, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, in pursuance of the order passed by the Foreigners Regional Registration Office, Hyderabad, under section 7(2)(f)(iii) and (viii) of The Immigration and Foreigners Act , 2025 (the ‘2025 Act’). The Special Government Pleader has placed the relevant statutory provisions before this Court. It is also submitted that the alleged detenu is actually a Bangladesh national having a Bangladeshi National ID Card but was found carrying forged Indian Identity Cards showing his address at South Tripura, India.
5. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties.
6. It is undisputed that the alleged detention has been enforced under Section 7 (1) of the 2025 Act. Section 7 of the 2025 Act deals with the power of the Central Government to issue orders, directions or instructions for making provisions either generally or with respect to all foreigners or with respect to any particular foreigner or any specified class or description of foreigner, for prohibiting, regulating or restricting the entry of foreigners into India or their departure from India or their presence or continued presence in India. Section 7 (2) of the 2025 Act enumerates the nature of stipulations that could be contained in the orders/directions/instructions issued under this provision upon foreigners. Sub-section 2(f) thereof specifies that an order could be passed providing that a foreigner shall comply with such conditions as may be specified thereunder which could be in the nature as described under clauses (i) to (x) including any conditions imposing any restriction on the movements of the foreigner (clause (iii)) or prohibiting him from engaging in activities of a specified description (clause (viii)).
7. In the present case, the alleged detenu has been detained by the Government as he was found carrying documents including a National ID Card issued by the Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. The Order No.4/FRRO/ HYD/LR/2025-2646 passed by the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO), Shamshabad, Hyderabad, dated 22.09.2025 further states that the alleged detenu has fraudulently obtained an Indian Passport despite having a Bangladeshi Passport.
8. We do not find any grounds for issuing a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to release the al
