Today, On 29th August, The Supreme Court heard a PIL on the detention of migrant Muslim workers from West Bengal suspected as Bangladeshi nationals. The Bench observed, “There are sensitive issues like national security and saving resources for our own people.”
New Delhi: The Supreme Court heard a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) questioning the detention of migrant Muslim workers from West Bengal, who are suspected of being Bangladeshi nationals.
The matter was taken up by a Bench of Justices Surya Kant, Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi.
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Prashant Bhushan told the court that after the Supreme Court issued notice, the government told the High Court not to hear a habeas corpus petition.
He said,
“As a result, a Bengali speaking woman was pushed into Bangladesh without any determination of her nationality this violates international law. Now, she’s arrested there as an Indian citizen.”
Read Also: Supreme Court Directs States & UTs to Issue Ration Cards to 80 Million Migrant Workers
Justice Surya Kant observed,
“There are many factual issues here. A habeas corpus plea cannot be adjourned just because this case is pending. We’ll request the High Court to hear it promptly and also determine the question of citizenship.”
Bhushan questioned the process further, asking,
“But meanwhile how can anyone be expelled as a non citizen without proper legal determination?”
Justice Kant responded,
“The challenge is how to frame an order that isn’t vague and can actually be enforced.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta strongly opposed the PIL and argued,
“Why do these organisations come before the court? Why doesn’t any individual come? They know if they will come the truth about them staying illegally would come out. India has a system in place and illegal immigrants cannot stay and use our resources which we can divert towards our own citizens’ benefit.”
Justice Bagchi then pointed out,
“The petition suggests a bias treating people as foreigners merely because of their language. Can this presumption hold?”
Justice Kant also said,
“If someone speaks Bangla and on that basis they are..”
Before SG Mehta interrupted, he stressed that the concern was that illegal immigrants put pressure on resources.
Read Also: A Ration Card is for Food Distribution, Not Proof of Residence: Delhi High Court
He also pointed out that it was not possible to rely only on media reports and highlighted that there were organized agents facilitating such entry.
Justice Kant acknowledged,
“True, illegal immigration is also a serious issue.”
Justice Bagchi added,
“There are very sensitive issues here like national security and the saving resources for people of our own country.”
Bhushan argued against arbitrary action by the Border Security Force (BSF). He submitted that the BSF cannot on its own decide who is Bangladeshi and push them out, as there must be a proper legal determination.
Justice Kant directed,
“Provide us the SOP being followed. Pushing back those trying to enter illegally may be one thing, but if someone is presumed to have already entered, the first step is to determine citizenship.”
SG Mehta insisted that an affected individual should come before the Court. In response, Justice Kant questioned whether they were even in a position to appear.
Justice Bagchi also asked,
“Suppose there are suspicious circumstances and police file an FIR under the Foreigners Act can’t they detain the person?”
Bhushan admitted that detention could be justified if an FIR was registered, but pointed out that in this case thousands of people were being held merely for speaking Bengali.
The Supreme Court then issued notice in the interlocutory application (IA) and directed a reply to be filed within a week.
The order recorded,
“A habeas corpus petition concerning Somali Bibi is already pending before the High Court but was adjourned to Sept 10 due to this case. We clarify the issues here are distinct. The High Court is requested to hear the writ petition promptly and decide it, including the interim prayer on ascertaining Somali Bibi’s citizenship, in accordance with law.”
Also Read: “Complete Migrant Labourer Ration Card Verification in 4 Weeks”: SC Orders States
During the hearing, SG Mehta also said that the matter should be heard along with the Rohingya case since the same issues were involved, including rackets, agents, and even concerns of terrorist infiltration.
Justice Kant replied,
“You’ve filed a reply there file one here too.”
Bhushan, however, highlighted the practical problem.
He said that the Home Ministry circular allows detention for 30 days while the State clarifies citizenship, but in practice people were being pushed out even before such clarification.
Case Title: West Bengal Migrant Workers Welfare Board & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 768/2025
Read Attachment
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
