A Bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made the observation while hearing the Union’s challenge to a Calcutta High Court order directing the repatriation of six persons who were pushed across the border in June 2025. Representing the petitioners, Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Sanjay Hegde argued that the Union had delayed compliance and initiated its challenge only when the families moved for contempt.

During the hearing, Hegde pointed out that the Union had allowed the High Court order to “lie in defect” for nearly a month. “These are Indian citizens who have been thrown across,” he submitted, according to a report of LiveLaw.

“What prevents you?” — CJI questions Union’s resistance

After examining the record, the CJI noted that substantial documentary material had emerged: birth certificates, land records, Aadhaar and PAN details of the deportees or their family members. These, he said, constituted “evidence of probability” that warranted a proper enquiry — something the authorities had “hardly” undertaken before deportation.

According to the LiveLaw report, the CJI observed: “If somebody has something to show you — that wait, I belong to India, I am born and brought up here — he has a right to plead before you. Earlier you hardly held any enquiry. The allegation is that the deportee was never heard.”

He then posed the central question to the Union: “So what prevents you? Why don’t you, at least as a temporary measure, bring them back, give them an opportunity of hearing, verify all these documents and take a holistic view?”

The Court directed the Union to obtain instructions by Monday, indicating that the government may consider facilitating their return while the enquiry is reopened.

Background of the case

The High Court order the Union has not complied with: This Supreme Court hearing stems from the Calcutta High Court’s September 26, 2025 judgment in Bhudu Sheikh v. Union of India, which quashed the deportation of six persons, including:

• Eight-month pregnant Sunali (Sonali) Khatun,
• Her husband Danish Sheikh,
• Their eight-year-old son Sabir,
• Sweety Bibi, and
• Her two minor sons.

The individuals had been picked up in Delhi during an “identity verification drive” and deported within 48 hours, allegedly without inquiry or notice to the West Bengal authorities. The petitioner — Sunali’s father, Bhudu Sheikh, a resident of Birbhum — maintained that all six were Indian citizens.

HC finds “hot haste,” disregard of MHA rules: The Division Bench of Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra held that:

• The deportation violated the MHA memo dated May 2, 2025, which requires a 30-day verification through the home State.
• Statements allegedly made by the detainees admitting they were Bangladeshis were inadmissible, since statements to police “without procedural safeguards” carry no presumption of voluntariness.
• Aadhaar and PAN records established that Sunali was born in 2000, making it impossible for her to have “entered India illegally in 1998,” as claimed.

Observing that “suspicion, however grave, cannot replace proof,” the Court declared the deportation unconstitutional and held that the executive’s conduct had “crippled the constitutional grant of fairness and reasonableness.”

HC ordered repatriation in 4 weeks: The High Court directed the Union, FRRO Delhi, and Delhi Police to repatriate the six individuals within four weeks, via the Indian High Commission in Dhaka. It refused to stay its own order, noting that:

“Liberty once lost must be swiftly restored.”

The four-week deadline expired on October 24, 2025, without compliance. Instead, the Centre filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court on October 22 — two days before the deadline.

Bangladesh Court also found them to be Indian citizens: In a development with diplomatic implications, the Senior Judicial Magistrate, Sadar Court, Chapainawabganj (Bangladesh) on September 30, 2025, also held that all six deportees were Indian citizens.

The Magistrate cited:

• Their Aadhaar details,
• Proof of residence in Birbhum,
• And the absence of evidence that they were Bangladeshi nationals.

The Court concluded that they had been “wrongfully pushed across the border,” directing that its order be transmitted to the Indian High Commission in Dhaka for appropriate action.

This created an extraordinary situation: both Indian and Bangladeshi courts had recognised the deportees’ Indian citizenship, while the Union government declined to bring them back.

Union’s defence of jurisdiction, suppression, and “confessional” statements: Before the Supreme Court, the Union contended that:

• The Calcutta High Court lacked jurisdiction as similar matters were pending before the Delhi High Court.
• The petitioner had allegedly suppressed this fact.
• The detainees had confessed to being Bangladeshi nationals during interrogation.

However, the High Court had already rejected these assertions, holding that:

• Jurisdiction for a habeas petition lies where the petitioner resides or where the effect of the detention is felt.
• Statements to police cannot form the basis of deportation under Articles 14, 20(3), and 21.

Detailed report on this may be read here.

Related:

Calcutta High Court strikes down arbitrary deportations of West Bengal residents, orders return from Bangladesh

Gauhati High Court seeks Centre’s May 2025 deportation notification as legality of re-detention of Abdul Shiekh and Majibur Rehman is scrutinised

Another Pushback Halted: SC stays deportation of woman declared foreigner, issues notice on challenge to Gauhati HC order

CJP Win! Gauhati HC stays deportation of Ajabha Khatun, will address bail demand on April 4

Assam’s New SOP Hands Citizenship Decisions to Bureaucrats: Executive overreach or legal necessity?

The post ‘They Have a Right to Be Heard’: Supreme Court suggests Union brings back alleged deportees from Bangladesh “at least as a temporary measure” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The decision, described as an “in-principle” nod after high-level deliberations, was conveyed to the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on July 30 by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who said the move stemmed from the “peculiar facts and unusual circumstances” of the case. This marks a significant climb-down by the Centre, which had earlier defended her expulsion on technical grounds. Mehta further stated that once Rashid returns, she may also pursue her two pending applications—one for Indian citizenship (filed in 1996) and the other for long-term visa (LTV) renewal.

From Deportation to Hope: A timeline of arbitrary state action

Rakshanda Rashid, a Pakistani national by birth and resident of Jammu’s Talab Khatikan locality, entered India legally in 1990 on a 14-day visitor visa. Her stay was subsequently regularised through a year-on-year Long-Term Visa (LTV), granted on the strength of her marriage to Indian citizen Sheikh Zahoor Ahmed, a retired government servant. Over the years, she built a life in Jammu, raising four children, all of whom are Indian citizens.

However, on April 25, 2025, just three days after a deadly terror attack in Pahalgam, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) abruptly cancelled all visas of Pakistani nationals. On April 28, Rashid was served a “Leave India Notice” by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), despite the fact that her LTV was valid until January 13, 2025, and her renewal application had already been filed.

In a move devoid of legal due process, she was forcibly taken from her home early on April 29 and escorted to the Attari-Wagah border, where she was pushed across into Pakistan. She was denied legal representation, not provided with a formal deportation order, and removed while her LTV extension request was still pending, a fact later confirmed through official emails from the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO).

Justice Bharti’s Resounding Rebuke: A “Constitutional SOS”

Rashid’s family immediately approached the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, seeking redress. In a powerful June 6 order, Justice Rahul Bharti denounced the deportation as both unconstitutional and morally indefensible. Observing that the petitioner was lawfully residing in India on an LTV and had a pending citizenship application, the judge framed the case as an extraordinary breach of due process, driven more by fear and bureaucratic indifference than by law.

“Human rights are the most sacrosanct component of a human life and, therefore, there are occasions when a constitutional court is supposed to come up with SOS like indulgence notwithstanding the merits and demerits of a case which can be adjudicated only upon in due course of time and therefore, this Court is coming up with a direction to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India to bring back the petitioner from her deportation.” (Para 3–5, Judgment dated June 6).

Justice Bharti recognised that Rashid had not been deported through lawful procedure, nor was her case considered individually despite the MHA’s own circular exempting Pakistani women married to Indian citizens and LTV holders from the mass visa cancellations.

Detailed report may be read here.

MHA’s Appeal: Deflecting responsibility through technicalities

Rather than complying with the order, the MHA filed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) on July 1, a day before the compliance hearing. In its appeal, the MHA avoided challenging the core humanitarian facts of the case. Instead, it relied heavily on technical defences, arguing:

• LTV had lapsed: The Ministry claimed Rashid’s visa was no longer valid on the date of deportation, making her an illegal resident.
• Delay in application: It alleged that her LTV renewal application was filed only on March 8, not January, and was therefore invalid.
• Violation of sovereign powers: The Union argued that Justice Bharti’s directive infringed on the Union’s sovereign authority to regulate deportations.
• Judicial overreach: It contended that courts cannot direct the executive to bring back a deported foreign national.

These claims, however, were flatly contradicted by documentary proof:

• An April 26 email from the FRRO confirmed that her visa renewal application was under process.
• A May 9 email stated the application had been escalated to higher authorities.
• Her daughter, Fatima Sheikh, alleged that the March 8 date was fabricated by local police to justify a planned removal. She maintained that the application was in fact submitted in January.

July 3: Division Bench stays repatriation order

On July 3, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal admitted the appeal and issued an interim stay on Justice Bharti’s order. In doing so, it temporarily blocked any attempt to bring Rashid back—even as the facts weighed overwhelmingly in her favour.

The stay order neither addressed the procedural illegality of her deportation nor provided any immediate remedy for her isolation in Pakistan. There was no timeline, no hearing on the merits, and no protection granted to a woman stranded in a country where she has no familial or social ties.

Detailed report may be read here.

Now, a narrow window opens

The Union’s recent reversal, however limited, is a vital first step. By deciding to grant Rakshanda Rashid a visitor visa, it has acknowledged, however tacitly, that her removal was deeply flawed. The decision also opens the door to her pursuing Indian citizenship, a process she began nearly 30 years ago. Importantly, as per the IE report, the Government made clear this is a one-off move, not to be treated as precedent.

While this move may not yet constitute full justice, it allows for something that has been denied since April: reunification, dignity, and the possibility of healing. But if the principle of human rights means anything at all, then the case of Rakshanda Rashid stands as a chilling example of what happens when bureaucracy overrides the Constitution—and a hopeful one, now, of what becomes possible when justice reasserts itself.

Order can be read here.

Related:

“A Constitutionally Imperative to Ensure Justice”: Supreme Court Orders CBI probe, arrests, and ₹50 Lakh compensation for brutal custodial torture of constable in J&K

Justice Deferred: J&K High Court stays repatriation of 63-year-old woman deported after Pahalgam attack, following MHA appeal

Poonch Court orders FIR against Zee News, News18 for falsely labelling deceased teacher as “Pakistani terrorist” during Operation Sindoor coverage

J&K High court orders repatriation of 63-year-old woman deported to Pakistan without due process

The post India to allow return of elderly Pakistani-origin woman wrongfully deported despite decades-long residence in J&K appeared first on SabrangIndia.