The year that was—4 | The long road to justice for a stateless refugee: Ahmed Almakki

AHMED Almakki’s case is a stark testament to the plight of Stateless individuals and the systemic challenges in ensuring their rights are protected. His year-long legal battle, fought tirelessly by his counsel, Akram Khan, highlights not just bureaucratic indifference but also the resilience required to protect fundamental human rights under the law.

A troubling journey of detention and uncertainty

Ahmed Almakki, a Rohingya refugee, was apprehended on September 21, 2014 by the authorities at the Padav Police Station, Gwalior. Lacking valid citizenship documents, he was charged under Sections 14(3,2) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and Section 3 of the Passport Act, 1920. Sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment in 2015, Ahmed completed his term on September 22, 2017.

However, instead of being deported or rehabilitated, Ahmed found himself placed in a makeshift ‘temporary detention centre’ within the Padav Police Station, a facility wholly unfit for human habitation. He endured months of physical and mental harassment, with no resolution in sight regarding his citizenship or future.

In June 2018, after escaping the detention center and being rearrested in Hyderabad, Ahmed faced further criminal proceedings under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act. Following another trial, he was sentenced again, completing his second term on July 2, 2021.

Yet, even after this, he was detained indefinitely in Central Jail, Gwalior, with no clarity on his status or deportation process, though the collector, Gwalior has no right to pass such an Order to declare a jail as a detention centre.

The turning point: A year-long legal battle

The prolonged detention led Ahmed’s counsel, Akram Khan, to file a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in early 2023 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench. The petition sought to challenge the continued illegal detention and demand Ahmed's transfer to a proper detention center until his deportation could be resolved.

Over the course of a year, the case saw numerous hearings, highlighting the state and Union government’s failure to adequately address Ahmed’s status. Key legal arguments included:

Violation of fundamental rights: Ahmed’s detention in a jail environment after he had served his sentence period was a direct violation of Article 20, which offers protection against the conviction of offences in certain ways, and Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and dignity, of the Indian Constitution.

International obligations ignored: India’s obligations under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and other international frameworks to provide humane treatment to refugees were brought to light.

Inadequate detention facilities: The petition emphasised that detention centers must comply with the Model Detention Center Manual, ensuring basic amenities such as hygiene, safe drinking water, medical care and humane living conditions. However, violating all these principles, the State authorities had declared Central Jail, Gwalior as a detention centre.