In a significant intervention that cuts to the heart of due-process failures in India’s deportation regime, the Supreme Court on November 27 suggested that the Union government bring back several West Bengal residents who were allegedly deported to Bangladesh on suspicion of being “foreigners.” The Court emphasised that the deportees — who claim Indian citizenship — had a fundamental right to be heard and to present their documents before the authorities.
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:
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?