nephew on June 18, 2026. Petitioner claims that his nephew is an Indian citizen and wrongfully detained.

2. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that in the Special Intensive Review (SIR), 2026 the detainee was initially classified as ‘under adjudication’. Name of the detainee was struck off from the Voters’ list in the SIR of 2026. Appeal directed against such decision is pending.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, the detainee was not given an opportunity of hearing, by the Tribunal under the SIR process of 2026. Without the disposal of the appeal the citizenship of the detainee cannot be decided.

4. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner refers to the documents annexed with the writ petition as also the supplementary affidavit filed pursuant to the order dated July 15, 2026. He submits that, great grandfather of the detainee was recorded in the CS Record of Rights in respect of an immovable property. The detainee possess Voter Identification Card as also a Bank Account. He refers to the various documents with regard to the paternal Aunty of the detainee to claim the citizenship of the petitioner.

5. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner relies upon

2026 INSC 694 [Sabitri Dey @ Swasthi Dey & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.]

in support of his contention that, the detainee was required to be heard prior to the detention and the eventual push back to the foreign country.

6. Learned advocate appearing for the State submits a report which be taken on record. Referring to such report, he submits that, the detainee is a foreign national. The detainee admitted himself to be a foreign national. He places the video recording of the detainee admitting himself to be a foreign national in Court to hearing of the learned advocate for the parties including that of the petitioner. He submits that, the detention of the detainee was made in terms of the Ministry of Home Affairs Circular dated May 2, 2025. Under such Circular, a time period of 60 days is given to a detainee to establish Indian citizenship. As on date, the detainee is yet to submit any document to establish his citizenship.

7. Learned advocate appearing for the Union of India, refers to the Ministry of Home Affairs Circular dated May 2, 2025. He submits that, all States in the India are required to follow such Circular.

8. The detainee is not before Court. Detainee is an adult. Detainee claims himself to be 46 years of age. Detainee was taken under detained on June 18, 2026 in terms of the Ministry of Home Affairs Circular dated May 2, 2025, and presently housed at a detention centre.

9. A detention order dated June 18, 2026 was issued to the detainee. Detention order speaks of inquiry, interrogation and verification with regard to citizenship of the detainee. Detention order states that such inquiry, interrogation and verification reveal the detainee to be a Bangladeshi National. Detention order, therefore, proceeded to exercise powers conferred under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 read with paragraph 8 and 12 of the Immigration and Foreigners Order, 2025.

10. Ministry of Home Affairs issued a Circular for laying down the procedure for deportation of foreign nationals dated May 2, 2025. The Circular dated May 2, 2025 of Ministry of Home Affairs delineate the procedure for dealing with illegally staying Bangladeshi/ Rohinga (Mayanmer) national apprehended in the country.

11. The Circular dated May 2, 2025 is not under challenge in the present writ petition. There is no allegation in the writ petition that, the mandate of the Circular dated May 2, 2025 was not followed so far as the detention is concerned.

12. When Indian authorities alleged that, a person detained is a foreign national, the onus is on the detainee to establish his or her nationality. This is so by reason of Section 16 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 1946.

13. Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025