The Supreme Court of India emphasized that “humanitarian considerations must be prioritized” while intervening to bring back a pregnant woman and her eight-year-old son from Bangladesh, highlighting compassion and human rights in deportation cases.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a hearing, the Supreme Court of India prioritized humanitarian considerations in the case involving the deportation of a pregnant woman and her eight-year-old son to Bangladesh. The bench, led by Justices Surya Kant and Joymala Bagchi, emphasized that vulnerable individuals must be treated with compassion and care.
During the proceedings, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) asked,
“That lady has been brought back?”
To which Solicitor General Tushar Mehta confirmed,
“Yes.”
The CJI then inquired if she needed any support, and the counsel informed the court,
“She is working as a maid.”
On the matter of her child, the court was told,
“Yes, they have been brought back,” confirming that both mother and child are now in India. Justice Bagchi noted that another similar petition would be examined separately,
“It will be examined seriously, but not in the light of this issue.”
The bench highlighted the urgency of handling such matters with care:
“Once we receive the documents, we’ll see how to work out the modalities in a time-bound manner,”
the CJI said.
Highlights from the Hearing
- Return of the Deportees: The Chief Justice of India (CJI) inquired whether the woman had been brought back to India. The Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta confirmed that she had been.
- Financial Assistance: The court explored whether any support was needed for the woman, who is currently employed as a domestic worker.
- Other Children and Petitions: The SG confirmed that the eight-year-old son had also been brought back. The court also noted another pending petition involving a similar issue, which will be examined separately.
- Humanitarian Consideration: The bench directed that once documents are received, the government should work out time-bound modalities to ensure humanitarian protection in such cases.
Advocate Sibal, representing West Bengal, criticized the government’s deportation process, saying,
“You should have conducted an inquiry before deporting them. The Union doesn’t do any inquiry for 30 days.”
Concerns About Media Narratives
During the proceedings, SG Mehta expressed concern about the role of certain tabloids, including The Times of India and Hindustan Times, in shaping narratives around sensitive legal matters. He noted that ill-informed reporting could lead to public misconceptions and unnecessary mockery of the judiciary. Justice Bagchi responded by clarifying that the court remains insulated from media narratives, emphasizing that publicity should not affect people’s lives.
During the hearing, the SG raised concerns over media reporting, mentioning that certain newspapers can create misleading narratives. He observed,
“Some tabloids are known for creating narratives. Today I saw the front page of Times of India. It may not even have gone through proper editorial review.”
Justice Bagchi responded,
“How does that affect this case?”
The SG clarified his concern,
“TOI and Hindustan Times should not be reduced to that level…then the Supreme Court gets mocked.”
The CJI added a cautionary note about public commentary,
“Ill-informed people start writing and commenting,”
while Sibal remarked that the issue has now become part of global discourse,
“As long as no motive is attributed, it’s not sacrilegious.”
The Supreme Court has scheduled the next hearing for January 6, 2026. The bench highlighted that humanitarian considerations must remain a priority, instructing the government to take such factors into account in future cases. SG Mehta assured the court,
“Certainly, absolutely. Your Lordships can rest assured.”
Caes Title:
UNION OF INDIA V BHODU SEKH AND ORS
SLP(Crl) No. 18658/2025
READ LIVE COVERAGE
