Today, On 2nd May, Amid Pahalgam tensions, the Supreme Court granted relief to Accenture employee Ahmed Tariq Butt, who claimed his family was asked to leave India despite holding valid passports and Aadhaar cards.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has stayed the government-ordered deportation of an Accenture employee from Bengaluru, Ahmed Tariq Butt, and his family.
Butt sought the court’s intervention, asserting that he and his six-member family were instructed to leave the country despite possessing Indian passports and Aadhaar cards.
The case arose after the Indian government suspended visa services for Pakistani nationals and ordered all Pakistani nationals to leave India by April 27th, amidst heightened tensions following the Pahalgam attack.
The court mandated a verification process for the documents presented by Ahmed Tariq Butt, an Accenture employee with an MBA from IIM Kozhikode in Kerala, and stipulated that “no coercive action be taken against Mr. Butt… till then.”
Mr. Butt was also advised to seek further remedies from the High Court. This directive was challenged by the government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. However, the Supreme Court recognized “some human element” in the case.
A Bench of Justice Surya Kant and NK Singh instructed the government to allow the family the opportunity to substantiate their claims before any deportation occurs, and to make a decision on the matter promptly.
The Court stated,
“Besides the human element, there are issues which need to be verified … Since factual plea needs verification, we dispose of the same without expressing anything on merits, with a direction to authorities to verify these documents and any other fact that may be brought to their notice. Let a decision be taken earliest. We are not setting a timeline … In the peculiar facts of this case, let the authorities not take any coercive action against petitioners till an appropriate decision is taken.”
Finally, the Supreme Court also clarified that its orders in this case could not be used as precedent in others, a significant statement given the number of reports about Indian national, many with Muslim names being asked to leave the country after visas were cancelled.
The family, consisting of a married couple and their four children, argued before the Supreme Court that they were wrongly arrested, asserting their Indian nationality and presenting government-issued identification such as Aadhaar cards, PAN cards, and voter IDs.
The Supreme Court further stated that should the Indian government decide to proceed with deportation following the verification process, the family retains the right to seek recourse from the Jammu and Kashmir High Court.
The court clarified,
“If petitioner is dissatisfied with final decision, a plea may be made before the Jammu and Kashmir High Court,”
Advocate Nanda Kishore, representing the family, informed the court that while one member of the family was employed in Bangalore, the remaining members resided in Srinagar.
During Friday morning’s court proceedings, Justice Surya Kant questioned Mr. Butt about his arrival in India.
The Justice asked,
“He was born in Mirpur in Pakistan… we want to know how and why you came to India?”
Mr. Butt responded that he entered India in 1997 with his father, who possessed a Pakistani passport.
Upon reaching Srinagar, Mr. Butt stated that he surrendered his Pakistani passport to the Jammu and Kashmir High Court. Following this, he applied for and obtained an Indian passport.
Mr. Butt further explained that other members of his family arrived in Srinagar three years later, in 2000, and each secured Indian citizenship and a passport.
He mentioned that he and his siblings received their education at a private school in the city.
However, despite possessing this documentation and the fact that he and his family members all hold Aadhaar cards, Mr. Butt stated that a Home Ministry order issued the previous week served notice to all to leave the country.
He asserted that the notice falsely claimed they had entered India on visas and had overstayed their permitted time.
The Court concluded the matter by directing the Indian government to verify the family’s claims.
The Court added that until the verification is complete, no coercive measures, including deportation, should be taken against the petitioners.
In response to the Pahalgam attack, the government has cancelled all visas for Pakistani nationals, with the exception of long-term stays and those granted to Pakistani Hindus. The attack involved four terrorists from the banned Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba group, who killed 26 civilians, primarily tourists, including a Nepali national.
The government has promised retaliation for what it considers the worst terror attack in India since the 2019 Pulwama attack, in which 40 soldiers were killed by another banned Pakistan-based terrorist group, Jaish-e-Mohammed.
The government has accused Pakistan of continuing to fund and support terrorism.As initial countermeasures after the attack, the government banned visas, closed the border with Pakistan, and suspended the Indus Waters Treaty. Pakistan responded by expelling Indians, closing its border and airspace, and suspending the Simla Agreement.
The recent terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, which tragically claimed the lives of several innocent civilians.
A tragic terrorist attack took place in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, On April 22, 2025, which claimed the lives of 28 people. The attackers, believed to be linked to The Resistance Front (TRF), a group associated with Lashkar-e-Taiba, targeted a group of tourists.
They separated men from women and children before shooting them at close range. The victims were chosen because they could not recite Islamic verses, and many were killed at restaurants and in wooded areas.
The attack shocked the nation and raised serious questions about security in the region. The area is popular among tourists and pilgrims, especially during the Amarnath Yatra season, which made the attack even more tragic.
Case Title: FATESH KUMAR SAHU AND ORS. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., Diary No. 22548-2025