Shillong: The Meghalaya High Court has found that 17 foreign nationals remained incarcerated in the Shillong District Jail despite having completed their judicial sentences, the court said on Wednesday. The inmates include 15 Bangladeshi nationals, one Myanmar national and one Nigerian, the Division Bench recorded during hearing of a writ petition by the Registrar General.
Judicial inspection and findings
A team appointed by the court visited the Shillong District Jail to examine the condition of the prisoners and to determine whether they were receiving required facilities and legal aid. The Bench comprised Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Wanlura Diengdoh, the court record shows.
The inspection revealed that the Myanmar national has been in custody for more than 10 years beyond the sentence period, while the Nigerian and several Bangladeshi nationals had been detained from a few months up to a couple of years after completing their terms.
What the court said and administrative response
The court criticised the state’s earlier communication about prison conditions, pulling up Additional Advocate General Khalid Khan for providing what the Bench described as "completely misleading and incorrect" information in a letter dated August 28.
"We cannot countenance persons being incarcerated in jail, despite having completed their sentence."
During the hearing, amicus curiae T. Yangi B. reported that her visits to three other jails in the State disclosed 11 prisoners who had completed their sentences. She said she could not confirm whether those 11 were foreign nationals or Indian citizens.
The State’s Inspector General of Prisons told the court that the prolonged detention had occurred because Meghalaya lacks designated detention centres to house foreign nationals after the end of criminal sentences. The court observed that, as a matter of law, persons who have completed their sentences should be moved to a temporary facility until a proper detention centre is established.
Court directions and next steps
The Division Bench directed the Additional Advocate General to take instructions on how soon a specific location could be designated and used as a temporary detention facility. The court also indicated that the question of compensation for those unlawfully kept in jail will be considered at an appropriate stage.
- Team inspected Shillong District Jail and assessed conditions and legal aid.
- Court pulled up AAG Khalid Khan over a misleading August 28 letter.
- IG Prisons cited absence of detention centres in Meghalaya as reason for continued incarceration.
Data at a glance
| Category | Detail |
|---|---|
| Number of foreign nationals found in jail | 17 |
| Nationalities | 15 Bangladeshi; 1 Myanmar; 1 Nigerian |
| Longest period detained beyond sentence | More than 10 years (Myanmar national) |
| Other jails with post-sentence inmates | 3 jails; 11 prisoners identified by amicus curiae |
Legal and administrative context
Under law, foreign nationals who have concluded criminal sentences are typically transferred from prison to designated detention or holding facilities while immigration and repatriation processes are completed. The court's finding indicates an administrative gap in Meghalaya where such facilities are absent, leading to continued detention within prison infrastructure.
The Bench required the State to consider interim arrangements to avoid continued custodial status in regular jails for individuals already sentenced. A formal detention centre, once established, would be expected to provide appropriate custodial conditions distinct from the prison system while immigration and deportation procedures proceed.
Human-rights and procedural implications
The court's remarks highlight potential liabilities for the State, including the prospect of compensation claims from persons unlawfully detained after sentences ended. The matter raises questions about coordination between the prison department, home/immigration authorities and the central agencies responsible for repatriation.
No timeline was indicated during the hearing for establishing a temporary facility or for resolving individual detention cases. The court has asked the Additional Advocate General to obtain instructions and report back on possible interim arrangements.
The case remains under judicial consideration and further directions are expected in subsequent hearings.
