The court’s decision stems from an appeal of one Begum Zan, who sought an extension for registering with FRRO.

GUWAHATI: Around 25,000 Bangladeshi immigrants in Assam may face deportation following a ruling by Gauhati high court Thursday. The case pertains to immigrants who arrived between 1966 and 1971 but failed to register with Foreigners Regional Registration Officer (FRRO) after being declared foreigners by tribunals.
The court’s decision stems from an appeal of one Begum Zan, who sought an extension for registering with FRRO. She was declared a foreigner by the Barpeta foreigners’ tribunal on June 29, 2020, but she failed to meet the registration deadline. The court rejected her plea, citing the binding nature of a recent Supreme Court ruling.
The case brings to the forefront a long-standing issue in Assam, where the 1955 Citizenship Act’s Section 6A, introduced in 1985, specifically addresses the status of immigrants from Bangladesh. Section 6A(2) grants citizenship to those who entered Assam before Jan 1, 1966, while Section 6A(3) covers those who entered between Jan 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971. The latter group is required to register with FRRO within 30 days of being declared foreigners, with a possible extension to 60 days. Those who fail to do so face the risk of deportation, while those who register are granted rights similar to citizenship, excluding electoral participation for ten years. After this period, they become full citizens.
About 5,000 people who missed the registration deadline, along with their family members, bring the total number facing deportation to Bangladesh to nearly 25,000. The high court judges said they could not grant an extension in Zan’s case, emphasising they were “bound by the decision of the Supreme Court”. The decision referred to a ruling made in Oct 2024 by a five-member constitution bench, which upheld the legality of Section 6A of Citizenship Act.
The majority of judges in the SC bench held that immigrants in this group (1966 to 1971), who did not register within the prescribed timeframe, would lose eligibility for citizenship. Justice JB Pardiwala dissented, arguing that those immigrants should be allowed to register even after the deadline.
Zan’s counsel AS Tapadar argued that the minority opinion from Justice Pardiwala should prevail. “Time should be allowed for the petitioner to register with FRRO,” Tapadar urged.