The return of four Bengali-speaking Muslims from Bangladesh to India marks a critical moment in one of the most troubling citizenship disputes to emerge in recent years. Their repatriation, secured only after sustained judicial intervention by the Calcutta High Court and the Supreme Court, has reignited concerns over the manner in which citizenship verification exercises have been conducted and the consequences of deporting individuals before conclusively establishing their nationality.
The four, Danish Sheikh, Sweety Bibi and her two sons, re-entered India through the Mahadipur border in West Bengal’s Malda district after spending months stranded in Bangladesh following their deportation in June 2025. This was the period (May-June 2025) when huge such undocumented “push out” efforts were carried out by the authorities under some instructions issued by the union government at the centre. Their return comes months after Sunali Khatun, who was pregnant at the time of her deportation, and her young son Sabir were allowed to return to India on humanitarian grounds. Together, the cases have become emblematic of the risks posed by administrative errors in citizenship determination and the constitutional imperative of ensuring that no individual is deprived of liberty without due process.
Detailed piece on Khatun’s deportation may be read here.
According to Scroll, residents of Paikar village in West Bengal’s Birbhum district confirmed that Danish Sheikh, Sweety Bibi and her two sons returned to the state after the Union Government complied with judicial directions requiring their repatriation. The families have consistently maintained that they are Indian citizens from Birbhum and had been living and working in Delhi when they were detained during an identity-verification exercise.
The deportations formed part of a wider crackdown that followed the April 2025 terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir. In the weeks that followed, police in several Bharatiya Janata Party-ruled states reportedly detained large numbers of Bengali-speaking persons, predominantly Muslims, and demanded documentary proof of Indian citizenship. Several individuals who allegedly failed to immediately establish their nationality were deported to Bangladesh. Subsequent investigations and court proceedings revealed that, in multiple cases, Indian citizens had been caught in the sweep.
Detailed report may be read here.
Few cases illustrate the devastating consequences of such errors more starkly than that of Sunali Khatun and her family. As reported by BBC News, Khatun, her husband Danish Sheikh and their young son were detained in Delhi after officials suspected that they were undocumented migrants. The family maintained throughout that they were Indian citizens from West Bengal. According to Khatun’s account, authorities failed to adequately verify the family’s claims or examine available evidence before initiating deportation proceedings.
The family was transported across the border into Bangladesh, where Bangladeshi authorities treated them as undocumented entrants and detained them. Instead of returning to the country of which they claimed to be citizens, they found themselves imprisoned in a foreign nation, separated from relatives and stripped of the protections ordinarily available under Indian law. What began as an administrative decision soon evolved into a humanitarian crisis.
The case exposed the extraordinary consequences of mistaken deportation. Unlike routine immigration enforcement, an erroneous determination of citizenship can sever families, deprive individuals of their nationality in practice, expose them to detention in another country and leave them without any effective legal protection. For those wrongfully deported, the consequences extend far beyond the loss of physical liberty—they amount to the denial of identity, dignity and constitutional safeguards.
The legality of these deportations soon came under judicial scrutiny. In September 2025, the Calcutta High Court, while deciding Bhodu Sekh v. Union of India & Ors. and the connected matter Amir Khan v. Union of India & Ors., delivered a strongly worded judgment directing the Union Government to bring back the deported families within four weeks.
The Division Bench of Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Reetobroto Kumar Mitra held that the authorities had acted in “hot haste” and failed to comply with basic procedural safeguards before deporting individuals who had asserted Indian citizenship. The Court found that the actions of the Delhi Police and the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) raised serious concerns under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and underscored that executive action, even in matters concerning illegal migration, must remain subject to constitutional limitations.
The Court directed the Union Government, through the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Indian High Commission in Dhaka, to facilitate the return of Sunali Khatun, Danish Sheikh and their son Sabir, along with Sweety Bibi and her two sons. In doing so, it reaffirmed that constitutional guarantees cannot be displaced by administrative expediency.
Detailed report may be read here.
The facts before the High Court painted a disturbing picture. According to the petitions, Sunali Khatun’s family was picked up by Delhi Police on June 24, 2025, during an identity-verification drive. Within forty-eight hours—and without any meaningful inquiry into their citizenship claims—they were deported to Bangladesh under orders issued by the FRRO under the Foreigners Act, 1946.
The petitioner’s case was that the family had longstanding roots in West Bengal. They possessed family members, land records and other documentary evidence linking them to Birbhum district. Significantly, Sunali’s Aadhaar and Permanent Account Number (PAN) records reflected her year of birth as 2000, directly contradicting the authorities’ assertion that she had entered India illegally in 1998—a claim that was factually impossible if the official records were accurate.
The petitioners further argued that the authorities had ignored the Ministry of Home Affairs’ own guidelines dated May 2, 2025, which required verification from the individual’s home State before deportation. They contended that no meaningful opportunity of hearing had been provided and that the deportations violated both statutory procedure and the constitutional guarantee of fairness.
The Union Government defended its actions by relying on Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, arguing that the burden of proving Indian citizenship rested upon the individuals concerned. It claimed that the detainees had failed to produce sufficient documents establishing their nationality and asserted that statements recorded during interrogation indicated that they were Bangladeshi nationals who had entered India illegally. The High Court, however, found that such disputed claims required proper verification and could not justify immediate deportation without following the prescribed legal process.
Supreme Court intervention and the government’s assurance
The Union Government challenged the Calcutta High Court’s directions before the Supreme Court, questioning both the High Court’s jurisdiction and its order directing the return of the deported individuals. However, the proceedings before the apex court marked a significant shift in the Centre’s position.
On May 22, 2026, the Union Government informed the Supreme Court that it would facilitate the return of the deported individuals to India and conduct a proper inquiry into their citizenship claims before taking any further action. Appearing before a Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that, “keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,” the Government had decided to bring the individuals back and verify their citizenship status in accordance with law.
Detailed report may be read here.
Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing for the affected families, requested that the Government’s assurance be formally recorded. Accepting the submission, the Supreme Court directed that the deported individuals be brought back to India and clarified that their continued stay would depend upon the outcome of a lawful inquiry into their citizenship claims. At the same time, the Court recorded the Government’s submission that the undertaking was being made in the peculiar facts of the case and should not be treated as a precedent for future deportation disputes.
The Centre informed the Court that the process of bringing the individuals back from Bangladesh would take approximately eight to ten days. The undertaking marked a notable departure from its earlier stand, under which it had defended the deportations as lawful exercises of executive power under the Foreigners Act.
The Supreme Court had, in fact, intervened even earlier in December 2025 in respect of Sunali Khatun. At the time, she was in an advanced stage of pregnancy and remained stranded in Bangladesh along with her young son. Considering the humanitarian dimensions of the case, the Court permitted their return to India while the dispute regarding citizenship remained pending. During those proceedings, the Bench observed that certain situations required “law to bend to humanity”—a remark that underscored the Court’s attempt to reconcile immigration enforcement with constitutional compassion.
Detailed report may be read here.
Constitutional questions beyond individual cases
The litigation has raised issues that extend far beyond the fate of a handful of families. At its core lies a fundamental constitutional question: can the State deport a person claiming Indian citizenship without first conducting a fair, thorough and lawful determination of that claim?
The Calcutta High Court answered this question emphatically in the negative. The Court observed that documentary material placed before it, including electoral records relating to members of the deportees’ families, prima facie indicated Indian lineage and warranted a detailed inquiry before any coercive action could be taken. Instead, the authorities acted with what the Court described as “hot haste”, deporting individuals within days of detention and without adhering to procedural safeguards contained in the Ministry of Home Affairs’ own guidelines.
The proceedings also highlighted the constitutional significance of Articles 14 and 21. Even where the State suspects an individual to be a foreign national, executive action must satisfy the requirements of fairness, reasonableness and due process. Citizenship disputes cannot be resolved through hurried administrative action that disregards evidence or deprives individuals of an effective opportunity to establish their identity.
The Government relied heavily on Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, which places the burden of proving citizenship upon the person concerned. However, the High Court made it clear that the statutory burden cannot justify dispensing with procedural fairness. Where credible evidence exists supporting an individual’s claim to Indian citizenship, authorities are required to conduct a meaningful verification before resorting to the irreversible step of deportation.
The cases have also revived discussion around the principle of non-refoulement—the international law norm prohibiting the forcible return of individuals to territories where they may face persecution, arbitrary detention or other serious harm. Although India is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, Indian courts have repeatedly read elements of this principle into Article 21’s guarantee of life and personal liberty. The petitioners argued that deporting individuals without adequately determining their nationality violated these constitutional protections.
It is crucial to note that in the month of October 2025, a Bangladesh court had ruled that these six individuals were forcibly deported from Delhi as “illegal Bangladeshis”, and are in fact Indian citizens citing their Aadhaar and home addresses. Even pursuant to this, the Union government challenged the Calcutta HC order in the Supreme Court
Detailed report may be read here and here.
A reminder of the cost of administrative error
The legal battle reached an important milestone when Danish Sheikh, Sweety Bibi and her two sons finally returned to West Bengal through the Mahadipur border crossing in Malda district. Their return followed months of litigation and judicial scrutiny that ultimately compelled the Union Government to revisit its position.
Political and legal advocacy around the issue was not confined to the courtroom. Even before the present litigation reached the Supreme Court, the Trinamool Congress (TMC) had repeatedly raised concerns over the treatment of Bengali-speaking migrant workers and alleged instances of wrongful detention and deportation. In May 2025, Rajya Sabha MP Samirul Islam wrote to Union Home Minister Amit Shah seeking immediate intervention against the reported harassment, detention and violence faced by Bengali-speaking workers in BJP-ruled states. Around the same time, Berhampore MP Yusuf Pathan also expressed concern over reports that migrant labourers from his constituency were being systematically targeted in Odisha, calling for measures to ensure their safety and protection.
The issue soon reached the Supreme Court in a broader constitutional challenge. In August 2025, the Court sought responses from the Union Government and nine States on a petition filed by the West Bengal Migrant Welfare Board alleging that migrant labourers from West Bengal were being detained on unverified allegations of being illegal Bangladeshi immigrants. As reported by The Hindu, a Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi acknowledged the State’s legitimate concern over illegal infiltration but observed that there must be a mechanism to identify and protect “bona fide workers.” The petition challenged the implementation of the Ministry of Home Affairs’ May 2, 2025 circular, contending that inter-state verification drives had resulted in arbitrary detention of genuine Indian citizens.
The party also remained actively involved after the deportations of the Birbhum families. In September 2025, TMC Rajya Sabha MP Samirul Islam visited the families of Sunali Khatun and Sweety Bibi in Murarai, Birbhum, after the two women and their children were allegedly pushed into Bangladesh despite claiming Indian citizenship. In a post on X, Islam described them as “bona fide Indian citizens” whose families had lived in Birbhum for generations and said the party, under Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, was pursuing the matter before both the Calcutta High Court and the Supreme Court. He assured the families that every possible legal and institutional assistance would be extended, including enrolment in the State government’s Shramshree welfare scheme once the women returned to India.
Speaking to Scroll, Trinamool Congress MP Samirul Islam remarked that it was “only because of the judiciary’s intervention” that the Government ultimately brought back what he described as “poor Indian citizens.” While affirming that genuine foreign nationals could lawfully be deported, he questioned why Indian citizens should be subjected to harassment, detention and expulsion before their citizenship was properly verified.
For the affected families, the return to India represents only partial relief. Their citizenship claims are yet to be conclusively determined, and the litigation continues. Nevertheless, their repatriation serves as an acknowledgement that irreversible executive action cannot precede a lawful determination of nationality.
The episode also carries wider implications for citizenship verification exercises across the country. Since the Pahalgam terror attack, numerous reports by SabrangIndia and Citizens for Justice and Peace have documented allegations of Bengali-speaking Muslims being detained, questioned and, in some cases, deported without adequate verification. The present litigation demonstrates the serious constitutional consequences of such practices and reinforces the judiciary’s role as a safeguard against arbitrary executive action.
Detailed reports may be read here, here, here and here.
CJP has also been providing legal aid in cases of forced and illegal deportations. Details may be read here.
Ultimately, the case is not merely about immigration enforcement or citizenship documentation. It is about the constitutional obligation of the State to exercise its powers fairly, cautiously and in accordance with due process. A mistaken deportation is not a routine administrative error—it can separate families, expose individuals to imprisonment in a foreign country and effectively deprive them of their nationality. The return of these families, secured through persistent judicial intervention, stands as a reminder that constitutional guarantees acquire their greatest significance precisely when the State exercises its most coercive powers.
Related:
The Battle of Belonging: Why India’s Passport Controversy Matters
IR 2025-2026: A backdoor exercise to bring in the NRC?
SIR 2025-26: Dismantling the very Idea of India?
The Uneasy Calm in Assam: The Limits of Control of a Nervous Government