In a significant intervention underscoring the primacy of humanitarian considerations over bureaucratic rigidity, the Supreme Court on Wednesday, December 4, directed the Union Government to bring back Sunali (Sonali) Khatoon, a heavily pregnant woman, and her eight-year-old son, Sabir, who were deported to Bangladesh in June following an identity-verification sweep in Delhi. The Union Government, appearing before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, conceded that the repatriation would be carried out “purely on humanitarian grounds” and without prejudice to its stance on the merits of the deportation, according to Livelaw.
The decision came during the hearing of special leave petitions filed by the Union challenging two Calcutta High Court orders of September 26–27, which had directed the return of six individuals deported to Bangladesh and mandated an opportunity to them to establish their Indian citizenship. Sunali and her child are among those six deportees, whose removal from India has since raised troubling questions of due process, legality, and the treatment of vulnerable individuals caught in verification drives.
A family caught in a deportation sweep
The case originated from a habeas corpus plea filed by Bhodu Sekh, Sunali’s father, who told the High Court that his family hailed from West Bengal but had migrated to Delhi for better livelihood opportunities. According to Sekh, Sunali, her husband, and their son were detained on June 21 during an identity-verification campaign initiated under a Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) notification dated May 2. Within five days, the family was produced before the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) and deported to Bangladesh on June 26.
In its September rulings, the Calcutta High Court noted the “hot haste” of the proceedings and criticised the Union and Delhi Police for effecting deportation without a fair hearing or adequate inquiry. The court observed that the names of the deportees’ grandfathers appeared in the electoral rolls of West Bengal—an important indication of Indian lineage. It also highlighted that the May 2025 MHA memo allows immediate deportation only under emergent circumstances following proper inquiry, finding that such procedural safeguards were “conspicuously absent.”
Detailed reports on the said case may be read here, here and here.
Humanitarian Intervention by the Supreme Court
At the recent hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Supreme Court that the Union had, after consultations, agreed to bring back Sunali and her child because of her advanced pregnancy and the need to avoid separation between mother and minor child. He clarified that the gesture:
- was not an admission concerning their citizenship,
- would not set a precedent,
- and would be accompanied by appropriate surveillance upon their return.
As the deportation was conducted formally through official channels, Mehta requested that the court incorporate the Union’s undertaking into its written order to expedite diplomatic coordination with Bangladeshi authorities. The Bench complied, ensuring that the repatriation process could begin without administrative obstacles.
Significantly, as per the report of Livelaw, the court remarked: “These are cases where law has to bend to humanity. Some of these cases require a different outlook.”
The order marks a crucial assertion of judicial discretion in situations where rigid enforcement risks inflicting disproportionate harm on vulnerable individuals.
Directions ensuring medical and social support
Accepting requests from senior advocates Kapil Sibal (appearing for the State of West Bengal) and Sanjay Hegde (for Bhodu Sekh), the Supreme Court directed that Sunali be allowed to reside temporarily in Birbhum district, where her family lives. As per Livelaw report, the Bench further ordered:
- Free and comprehensive medical care for Sunali, including all delivery-related services;
- Full assistance and day-to-day care for her minor son;
- Immediate coordination between the Union, West Bengal authorities, and medical officials to ensure safe return and treatment.
The Bench noted that since Sunali was picked up from Delhi, she may initially be brought back to the national capital before being shifted to her native district.
Citizenship Inquiry: Biological link may be pivotal
Justice Bagchi raised a crucial legal issue: if Bhodu Sekh is indeed an Indian citizen—as the High Court record suggests—then Sunali, as his biological daughter, and Sabir, as her child, would also qualify as Indian citizens. The Court urged the Union to undertake an inquiry into Sekh’s citizenship in accordance with principles of natural justice, signalling that the broader dispute over nationality remains very much alive.
Contempt proceedings and Union’s concerns
The Solicitor General informed the Court that a contempt petition was pending before the Calcutta High Court against the Union Government for non-compliance with the repatriation directions. While Mehta requested protection, the Bench said that since the Supreme Court was now seized of the matter, the High Court would not proceed independently. It declined to formally stay the contempt proceedings but indicated that the issue would not trouble the Union in light of ongoing Supreme Court supervision.
Remaining Deportees: Union maintains they are Bangladeshis
The Supreme Court also took note of the fact that four other deportees named in the High Court’s September orders remain in Bangladesh. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal requested that the Union take instructions regarding their return as well. The Solicitor General resisted, insisting that the remaining individuals were “Bangladeshi nationals” and that the Union had a serious contest to their claims of Indian citizenship.
The Bench has directed the Union to return with its instructions at the next hearing, signalling that the nationality dispute for the remaining individuals is far from settled.
Backdrop of procedural lapses
The High Court’s criticism of the June 2025 deportations remains a crucial backdrop. The Delhi Police, FRRO and central agencies executed the arrest-to-deportation timeline in five days, a speed the High Court deemed incompatible with fair procedure. It held that:
- no adequate inquiry was conducted,
- no meaningful opportunity to be heard was given,
- and the exercise violated the Union’s own procedural guidelines.
Although the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on these legal defects, its present orders focus on preventing further harm while preserving the Union’s right to contest the High Court’s findings.
A limited but crucial relief
While emphasising that its directions do not prejudice the Union’s legal arguments on the merits of the deportation, the Supreme Court made clear that humanitarian imperatives could not be ignored. The Court will resume hearing the matter on December 12, when it will also consider the status of the remaining deported individuals.
For now, the Court’s intervention ensures that a heavily pregnant woman and her young child will not be left without medical care or family support across an international border—sending a powerful message that judicial oversight remains vital where citizenship, deportation and human dignity intersect.
Related:
“All I Wanted Was Peace”: How 55-year-old widow Aklima Sarkar won back her citizenship
From Despair to Dignity: How CJP helped Elachan Bibi win back her identity, prove her citizenship
CJP Win! Gauhati HC stays deportation of Ajabha Khatun, will address bail demand on April 4