Justice Pardiwala questioned “[When an immigrant is] apprehended, put to trial, and is convicted, what is the charge against him? That you are an illegal immigrant. You are not entitled to stay in this country without any valid passport or any other document. And we hold you guilty under the Foreigners’ Act. Once this comes, not challenged, not stayed by any superior court, then what is the idea in asking the neighboring country to tell this country about his nationality and verification?”
NEW DELHI: On 13th Feb, The Supreme Court of India has reserved its judgment in a case concerning the indefinite detention of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants in the country.
The case was heard by a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan. It was initially brought before the Calcutta High Court but was later transferred to the Supreme Court in 2013.
ALSO READ: Bangladesh Illegal Immigrants in India: Legal Stance and Regulations Explained
Background
The issue came to light when a petitioner wrote a letter in 2011 to the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court. The letter highlighted the plight of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants who continued to remain confined in correctional homes even after serving their sentences for violating the Foreigners Act.
The letter mentioned that instead of being deported to Bangladesh after completing their punishment, these immigrants were being kept in correctional homes in West Bengal.
Taking suo motu cognizance of the matter, the Calcutta High Court initiated legal proceedings, which were later transferred to the Supreme Court.
During the hearing, senior lawyer Vrinda Grover, appearing for the petitioner, questioned the continued detention of immigrants even after completing their punishment.
She argued:
“How can I be detained in a prison having served my sentence? That would be an anathema for Article 21…because I have been subjected to the rule of law and I have served a sentence, can my fate be worse than those who have gone under the radar of law?”
Justice JB Pardiwala acknowledged the seriousness of the situation, calling it “pathetic.”
On behalf of the Union government, Additional Solicitor General Bhati explained that illegal immigrants cannot be deported until their nationality is confirmed by their respective countries.
Hearing this, Justice Pardiwala questioned the necessity of waiting for confirmation from Bangladesh and remarked:
“[When an immigrant is] apprehended, put to trial, and is convicted, what is the charge against him? That you are an illegal immigrant. You are not entitled to stay in this country without any valid passport or any other document. And we hold you guilty under the Foreigners’ Act. Once this comes, not challenged, not stayed by any superior court, then what is the idea in asking the neighboring country to tell this country about his nationality and verification?”
He further stressed the urgency of deporting such individuals, stating:
“Today we have reached a stage where we need to take immediate steps to send them back and they should not stay back…Just imagine 1000+ people are undertrials.”
The court also raised concerns about the absence of proper detention centres in West Bengal. The bench questioned the state government’s failure to set up dedicated facilities for detained immigrants.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Seeks Rohingya Refugee Residence Details in Delhi
Expressing displeasure, the judges remarked:
“Why you don’t have a correctional home or detention centre? Even after a person is convicted, he undergoes the entire sentence, you keep him in jail!? How can you do that? Is the state so poor that it does not have a correctional home or a detention centre?”
The bench further pointed out that merely renaming jails as correctional homes is not a solution:
“It’s very easy for you to put a board outside the jail premises ‘correctional home’ but still it remains a jail…and jail means you don’t allow him to walk out, have a stroll in the bazar, ask him to come back by sunset, and then you put him again. Correctional homes probably may have some liberty, they move around in a restricted area which is earmarked…”
Case Title:
Maja Daruwala v. Union of India | Transfer Case (Criminal) No. 1/2013
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
