Araria, Bihar: While speaking over a video call from a jail in the Araria district in northeastern Bihar, Hassan Hassan appeared helpless but resigned to his fate, trapped in an Indian jail for nearly seven years.
In fluent Hindi—which he was once unfamiliar with—the 33-year-old Rohingya refugee spoke calmly about his fading hope for release.
“You're surrounded by people going about their daily routine; some come, some go, and over time, your mind starts believing that you, too, will eventually be released,” said Hassan. “Now, I feel suffocated here.”
Hassan has been jailed at the district jail in Araria, which borders Nepal's Morang district, since September 2018, when he was 26.
Hassan was denied bail in November 2018 due to an ongoing police investigation. He then approached the Patna High Court for relief.
The Patna High Court twice ordered his release—in January 2019 and June 2021—yet the district administration failed to comply with the orders.
Even though the court had already recognised his refugee status and directed the district magistrate (DM) to hand him over to his sister at the India-Nepal border, the exchange never occurred.
According to Hassan, the local administration attempted to deport him on 12 August 2021, although his sister was not summoned, and he was not taken to the border.
After the second high court order in 2021, the local administration sought consent for the deportation from the chief district officer of Morang district in south-east Nepal, but the Nepali administration delayed the process, asking for more time to reply.
The Araria district administration claimed they couldn’t release him over the border as he was not a Nepali citizen, and they refused to hand him over to his sister in the absence of any representative from the Morang administration.
“It’s beyond our authority to hand him over to his sister. If his nationality isn’t confirmed, why should we deport him to Nepal? If he were Nepali, it would be a different matter,” Anil Kumar, the DM of Araria, who has been in the post since 8 September 2024, said on 8 March 2025.
Kumar said the matter had been forwarded to the migration department at the ministry of external affairs (MEA).
Bihar has been governed by the Janata Dal (United) since 2005, with Nitish Kumar as chief minister, except for a 278-day interregnum in 2014-15. The party has ruled in alliance with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), except between 2015 and 2020, when it was in coalition with the Mahagathbandhan alliance, which included the Congress.
According to the current DM, the local administration referred the matter to the ministry of home affairs (MHA), which referred it to the migration department at the ministry of external affairs (MEA) to handle his deportation. The matter has been pending.
Hassan was also caught in legal limbo.
The legal proceedings—for entering India illegally—in a district and sessions court in Araria were discontinued on 21 January 2019, when the case record was received by the court, without conclusion or discharge, as the sessions court interpreted the high court deportation order to mean criminal proceedings should be halted.
The pending criminal proceedings meant the deportation to Nepal could not be carried out, according to Indian law.
Legal experts said the lower court should not have halted the proceedings independent of the high court’s order for deportation.
Justice A N Mittal, a former judge at the Allahabad High Court, told Article 14 that a person awaiting deportation can't be released and deported unless the “criminal trial they are accused in is concluded.”
To expedite his release, Hassan applied, on 6 March 2025, to plead guilty to entering the country illegally—as he had served close to the maximum sentence applicable—but the court declined to list the matter, stating that no trial was ongoing.
Hassan is represented by three lawyers based in Araria, two of whom, Nawaz and Rameez, practice together. The three lawyers have represented him pro bono since March 2025, when they moved a guilty plea at the sessions court.
Article 14 emailed Roshan Sharma, national external relations officer, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Nepal, on 24 March 2025, who said they would respond formally. However, we have not received a response yet.
We also emailed the MEA twice, on 24 March and 14 April. There was no response.
Article 14 also emailed Rama Dwivedi, assistant external relations officer, UNHCR India and the UNHCR regional spokespersons Babar Baloch and Radhika Bhatnagar for Asia and the Pacific. Babar, whom we also messaged on WhatsApp, referred us back to Dwivedi. However, we have not yet received a response.
We mailed the chief district officer and district headquarters in Morang, Nepal, on 14 April. We have yet to receive a reply.
We will update this story if there are any responses.
No Legal Recognition
Hassan’s prolonged incarceration, without charges ever being framed or the matter being discharged, reflects a broader hostility towards Rohingya refugees, as India resists setting a legal precedent that could be seen as endorsing international refugee protections while they are criminalised within the country in the absence of legal recognition.
India is not a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol, which uphold the principle of non-refoulement—prohibiting the return of refugees to places where they risk persecution.
The government has asserted that refugee recognition is a “pure policy decision” and labeled Rohingya “illegal”, defending their expulsion.
In Hassan’s case, unlike others, he did not seek asylum and has yet not been deported. This contrasts with India’s usual stance of pushing for Rohingya deportation, calling them national security threats.
“What sets Hassan’s case apart is that he intended to return to Nepal, where he was a recognised refugee, not stay in India,” said Araria-based advocate ZA Mujahid, who has been representing Hassan since March 2025. “But the fear of setting a precedent kept him detained.”
According to Mujahid, the Indian administration’s insistence on questioning Hassan’s citizenship while ignoring his refugee status in Nepal and refusal to hand him over to his sister as ordered by the court, has left him trapped in the same perilous limbo as many other Rohingya refugees.
As of September 2024, the UNHCR estimates that 676 Rohingya refugees are in detention centres nationwide, 608 without court cases or pending sentences.
“The Indian authorities should be protecting refugees, not defying judicial orders to hold people indefinitely,” Meenakshi Ganguly, deputy director of Human Rights Watch's Asia Division, told Article 14.
“At a time when we are witnessing such cruel crackdowns on immigrants and asylum seekers in many parts of the world, India can be setting the standard on rule of law, not violating international laws,” Ganguly added.
India's Hostility Towards Rohingya Refugees
The growing hostility towards Rohingya refugees is reflected in several directives and statements from the Union Government, especially since 2017, calling to deport them while rolling back long-term visas and UNHCR refugee card recognition. The centre also launched a campaign for biometric data collection, following Rajnath Singh's direction to the states in 2018, raising apprehensions about the forced repatriation of the Rohingya refugees to the regime they fled (here, here, here, here and here).
The BJP’s politics systemically targeted Rohingya refugees, as symbols of the larger anti-Muslim rhetoric, with the Muslim refugees being termed “infiltrators” as witnessed in the Jharkhand, Haryana, West Bengal, New Delhi, Uttarakhand and Maharashtra assembly elections between 2017 and 2025 (here, here, here, here, here and here).
The Supreme Court and Manipur High Court (here and here) have reiterated their rights under Article 14 (equality), Article 21 (life and liberty) and Article 51 (promotion of international peace and security) concerning refugees. However, the core issue remains unresolved. There is still no legal recognition for Rohingya refugees.
In 2024, the BJP-led Manipur government deported 77 Rohingya refugees between 8 March and 11 June.
The persecution of Rohingya in Myanmar has spanned over four decades, escalating sharply in 2017 when the Myanmar military launched a brutal crackdown involving mass killings, sexual violence and village burnings. A UN fact-finding mission estimated that at least 10,000 Rohingya were killed during the 2017 military operations alone. The UN has called the violence a “textbook example of ethnic cleansing.”
Since the 1990s, over one million Rohingya have been displaced across several countries, including Bangladesh, Malaysia and India.
The UNHCR estimates that there are 90,500 refugees and asylum seekers from Myanmar living in India—third highest of any country after Bangladesh and Malaysia—with 22,500 of them registered as Rohingya refugees and asylum seekers. An estimated 20,000 fled to India after the 2017 military operation.
According to a 2023 report by independent humanitarian organization Refugees International and The Azadi Project, most Rohingya refugees in India “live in the cities of Hyderabad, Jammu, Nuh, and Delhi", with Hyderabad having the largest population of 7,200.
Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, representing NGO Rohingya Human Rights Initiative, in a February 2025 public interest litigation hearing in front of the Supreme Court, seeking to quash a December 2024 circular issued by Delhi’s Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government prohibiting government schools from admitting children of Rohingya refugees, claimed there are 1,050 Rohingya refugees in Delhi.
In the 2025 Delhi elections, both the AAP and the BJP escalated anti-Rohingya rhetoric to woo votes. BJP leaders, including home minister Amit Shah, vowed to expel Rohingya and “illegal Bangladeshis”.
The AAP matched the hostility.
In December 2024, Delhi CM Atishi declared that “no Rohingya should be given admission in the government schools of Delhi.” Days earlier, she accused BJP of “appeasing” Rohingya, citing a 2022 tweet by Union minister Hardeep Singh Puri about housing them in government flats—an idea the BJP later disowned as the MHA issued a strong denial.
Criminal Case Registered
Hassan and his 14-year-old nephew, Anwar Sadiq, were accused of entering Indian territory without documents.
An FIR was registered against them on 11 September 2018 under section 14A of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (entry in restricted areas) and section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (cheating).
The following day, the district court in Araria remanded Hassan to judicial custody. More than six years on, despite 144 hearings, charges have not been framed.
Hassan’s UNHCR card showed that he has been a resident of Nepal since 28 August 2012.
Hassan has worked for various non-governmental organisations in Nepal.
Hassan applied for bail at the district and sessions court in Araria on 26 October 2018.
The 17 November 2018 court order, in response to this plea, accessed by Article 14, acknowledged he was a victim of communal violence in Myanmar and that no incriminating material was found in his possession.
Yet, the court order denied him bail, citing an ongoing investigation by the Bihar police.
Two Orders For Release
In January 2019, Hassan approached the Patna High Court, which issued its order on 15 January that year, ordering his release and deportation to Nepal “within a fortnight from the date of order”.
The high court order was to be complied with by “all concerned authorities”.
Months passed, and Hassan remained behind bars, forcing him to move the Patna High Court for relief once more in 2019.
The court first heard this plea on 14 August 2019.
In its second and final order, nearly two years later, on 23 June 2021, the high court affirmed that “his release and deportation were not ensured despite the order” and directed the DM of Araria to ensure that he was handed over to his sister at the India-Nepal border for his deportation.
“If despite two high court orders, I’m kept in jail or in a detention centre then the justice system is a joke,” said Hassan. “If you cannot follow the high court’s orders then it is for the DM to tell the high court that they cannot follow the order. Then, the high court would have found some other way to resolve the matter.”
‘Refused To Hand Me Over’
The high court’s second order, passed on 23 June 2021, gave the administration a one-month deadline to comply.
Hassan said that on 12 August 2021, 17 days past the deadline, the local administration attempted to deport him.
"They had prepared for deportation. However, the Nepalese authority’s stance was unclear, since I'm not a Nepali citizen,” said Hassan. “They (Araria district administration) refused to hand me over to my sister."
The local administration refused to hand him over to her, citing Hassan's lack of Nepali citizenship and a consensus from Nepali authorities, though he was a recognised refugee in Nepal.
When Article 14 met the DM again on 8 March, this time in the presence of Hassan’s lawyers, he defended the decision not to hand Hassan over to his sister.
“It’s beyond our authority to hand him over to his sister,” the DM said. “If his nationality isn’t confirmed, why should we deport him to Nepal? If he were Nepali, it would be a different matter.”
According to his advocate, Mujahid, the administration's claim that Hassan's nationality was unverified was just a “justification” used to block his release and “exposes a systemic failure and a deliberate evasion of accountability.”
Mujahid added, “As the court still ordered his release, it became the prerogative of the DM to coordinate with Nepal’s authorities as per the court’s order to ensure it.”
Administratively, the DM had the bona fide authority to execute the order and hand Hassan over to his sister in Nepal, where he was a recognised refugee.
On 16 October 2022, Hassan’s UNHCR card, which granted him refugee status, expired, further blocking any potential coordination between Nepal, the UNHCR and the local administration.
On 7 July 2022, and again on 21 December 2022, the additional district judge in Araria, where the criminal case was being heard, called for a report from the DM on the non-compliance with the second high court order and reiterated the need to comply, noting the one-month deadline had already passed.
The judge called for compliance on the two dates but ignored the core issue arising from the suspension of legal proceedings against Hassan.
Criminal proceedings against Hassan were supposed to proceed at the district and sessions court in Araria, where the matter was committed. However, the sessions court halted legal proceedings citing the 2019 high court release order but did not dismiss the case against him.
"The court reiterated compliance by the district magistrate; however, it ignored the fact that the trial was still pending," said Nawaz, and added that the incomplete legal proceedings were holding up Hassan’s release and handover.
Ministry Made Responsible
On 8 March 2025, Kumar, the DM of Araria, told Article 14 that a former DM had forwarded the matter to the migration department at the MEA, but the MEA had yet to respond.
The MEA, already party to the case, had raised no objection to Hassan’s release.
It told the high court the only hurdle was that he was neither a citizen of Nepal nor was accepted by Myanmar.
“Once the ministry was made responsible, the matter was officially gone from the hands of the local administration,” said an official from the local administration, on condition of anonymity. “Even if there was any potential for his deportation, the local administration would not be able to process it.”
Mujahid said that the shift of responsibility to the MEA, while not seeking further guidelines from the high court, showed how the prolonged delay was created, making Hassan's release impossible.
According to advocate Mujahid, the district administration approached the chief district officer of Morang, a district in east Nepal bordering Bihar’s Araria district, who demanded time to respond.
“The administration failed to follow up, relying instead on the ministry for further processing and deflecting from the task of deportation as opposed to his release and handover,” advocate Mujahid said. “Since then, the authorities have merely shuffled letters, with no progress made.”
Transfer To Detention Centre
Hassan said the DM, during a regular visit to the jail in November 2024 assured him that the local administration was still trying to comply with the high court's orders, and asked him to write a formal letter of complaint.
On 28 November 2024, the jail authorities wrote to the district legal services authority, Araria, copying it to the DM, after Hassan raised concerns regarding his prolonged imprisonment.
“They wrote to the district administration, seeking directions to shift me to a detention centre, even though I didn't consent to it,” Hassan said. “They did nothing to release me in more than three years (since the second high court order passed in June 2021).”
On 8 March 2025, the DM said, “I wish for relief for him. We are looking to move him to a detention centre until he is deported.”
According to directives from the MHA, foreigners who complete their maximum sentences are to be put in detention centres pending their deportation.
Hassan and his lawyers said that the transfer would lead him to be indefinitely detained, as his refugee card has lapsed, leaving him stateless.
"In jail, I have been hopeful that I'll be released sooner or later, but the detention centre would bring an end to my consolations,” said Hassan. “I would lose the hope that I'll ever be released.”
Describing the transfer to a detention center as “in defiance of the high court's order” for release, Mujahid said, “It is nothing short of a life sentence.”
Pleading Guilty
After completing more than six years of the maximum sentence of eight years under section 14A of the Foreigners Act without trial, Hassan's legal team filed a guilty plea at the sessions court on 6 March 2025 as a last resort to expedite his release.
This was to try to resolve the case that the sessions court had discontinued without conclusion or discharge.
The application stated that Hassan was accepting the charges for entry into restricted areas (section 14A of the Foreigners Act) but raised concerns over the cheating (IPC section 420) charge, which could have extended his maximum sentence by seven more years.
His lawyers argued that while the maximum sentence under the charge for entering the country illegally couldn't exceed eight years, Hassan had been jailed for more than six years without trial and denied a chance to defend himself—as a trial has not taken place, with legal proceedings being suspended in January 2019.
They further argued that there was no material evidence supporting the cheating charge.
However, the judge refused to record the guilty plea, arguing that criminal proceedings were not ongoing and the matter was not in the courtroom. This stemmed from the judge's interpretation of the high court's order as a reason to halt legal proceedings.
Despite the stalled criminal proceedings at the sessions court, the lower court has recorded his production 144 times since 21 January 2019. As of this report's publication, his next production date is 19 April 2025.
“The authorities have deliberately stopped producing me in court ever since they halted the criminal proceedings,” said Hassan. “At the very least, being taken out would let me breathe some fresh air, making the situation a little more bearable.”
(Syed Affan is a Delhi-based journalist who reports on human rights, the environment and policy)
Get exclusive access to new databases, expert analyses, weekly newsletters, book excerpts and new ideas on democracy, law and society in India. Subscribe to Article 14.