Recently, the Supreme Court expressed concern over the indefinite detention of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants despite serving their sentences for offences under the Foreigners' Act. The Court also raised questions about the necessity of verifying their nationality from Bangladesh before deportation, emphasizing that the primary offence is illegal entry into India. The Court highlighted the challenges posed by the lack of detention centres and correctional homes, particularly in West Bengal, where immigrants are being kept in prisons post-conviction.
In the case concerning illegal Bangladeshi immigrants, a petition was filed after a letter was sent to the Calcutta High Court Chief Justice in 2011, highlighting the plight of immigrants detained after serving their sentences. Despite fulfilling their sentences, these individuals were not being deported but were instead languishing in correctional homes in West Bengal. In 2013, the matter was transferred to the Supreme Court, and during the hearings, it became clear that the state’s lack of correctional facilities for detained immigrants was a major issue.
The counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Vrinda Grover, argued that the immigrants, many of whom are women, were being held in jails masquerading as correctional homes. Grover invoked Article 21 of the Constitution, asserting that the continued detention of individuals who have completed their sentences violated their fundamental rights. She also referred to the Court’s 2019 order in the Assam detention centre case, which ordered the release of individuals who had been detained for over three years, subject to certain conditions.
The counsel for West Bengal defended the stance that the verification of the nationality of the immigrants was necessary before deportation. However, Justice JB Pardiwala questioned the necessity of such verification, pointing out that the charge against the immigrants was their illegal entry into India, and nationality verification from Bangladesh seemed irrelevant. The Court also criticized the state for its failure to establish proper correctional homes or detention centres, stressing that keeping individuals in jails after serving their sentences was an inhumane practice.
In response to the Union of India’s argument that nationality verification was required before deportation, Justice Pardiwala emphasised the need for immediate action, pointing out that the charge of illegal immigration was clear, and the verification from the neighbouring country should not delay the process. The Court further noted that the illegal immigrants in India were receiving shelter and medical aid, which would likely not be available to them in other countries, further underscoring India’s humane approach.
The Court's observations reflected a deep concern over the treatment of illegal immigrants post-conviction and the delay in their deportation, calling for immediate steps to resolve the matter. In a related matter, another bench of the Supreme Court had also questioned the indefinite detention of illegal immigrants in Assam’s foreign detention centres.
The Apex Court has reserved its judgment in this matter, addressing the ongoing issue of indefinite detention of illegal immigrants, particularly those who have already served their sentences. The decision will likely set a precedent for handling similar cases in the future.
Picture Source :
