Calcutta High Court questions the two-month detention of a suspected Bangladeshi national, stressing due process before deportation.
The Calcutta High Court has questioned the legal basis for keeping a Murshidabad resident in detention for nearly two months over suspected Bangladeshi nationality, emphasising that deportation must follow due process of law.
Calcutta High Court Questions Prolonged Detention
The Calcutta High Court has raised concerns over the continued detention of a man suspected of being a Bangladeshi national, questioning whether authorities can order deportation without properly establishing his nationality and following the prescribed legal procedure.
Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya made the oral observations on October 8, 2026, while hearing a petition challenging the detention and proposed deportation of Sahidul Shekh, a resident of Murshidabad, West Bengal.
During the hearing, the Court questioned the State’s position on individuals who may have crossed the international border decades ago. It asked whether everyone who entered India across the border during the 1970s could realistically be sent back, highlighting the need to consider the practical realities of border districts.
The Court also questioned the legality of detaining an individual for such a prolonged period without following due process. It specifically sought an explanation regarding the period of detention, referring to the man’s custody since August.
Can Family Members’ Statements Establish Nationality?
A significant concern raised by the Court related to the material relied upon by the authorities to determine the man’s nationality.
The Bench questioned whether statements allegedly made by family members could, by themselves, establish that a person was a Bangladeshi national. It asked the State to explain whether such statements were sufficient to justify a deportation order.
The Court’s observations underscore the distinction between suspicion regarding a person’s nationality and legally establishing that nationality through relevant evidence.
During the proceedings, the State was represented by Additional Advocate General Rajdeep Majumdar. The State argued that documents such as Aadhaar, PAN and other identity records, if obtained through forged documents, could provide grounds for taking action against the individual.
However, the existence of identity documents and the allegation that they were fraudulently obtained raise questions that must be examined on the basis of evidence. The Court’s concerns focused on whether the authorities had adequately established the necessary facts before taking steps towards deportation.
Deportation Order Passed During Pending Proceedings
The Court was also informed that the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer (FRRO) had passed a deportation order while proceedings concerning the man’s detention were already pending before the High Court.
This development prompted the Court to examine the circumstances in which the deportation order had been issued.
When the State requested that the petitioner approach the FRRO, the Court declined to direct him to do so, noting that the police authorities had detained the man and issued the detention memorandum.
The distinction was significant because the challenge before the Court concerned the legality of the detention undertaken by the police and the resulting action against the petitioner.
The matter was subsequently released and directed to be placed before the appropriate Bench dealing with cases concerning the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The matter was scheduled to be placed before Justice Krishna Rao on October 14, 2026.
Due Process Remains Essential in Deportation Cases
The proceedings raise an important legal question: how should authorities balance the enforcement of immigration laws with an individual’s right to lawful treatment?
The State has the authority to take action against foreign nationals in accordance with applicable legislation. However, the exercise of that authority must comply with the legal requirements governing identification, detention and deportation.
A person’s suspected nationality cannot automatically substitute for the evidence and procedures required by law. Where detention is challenged, the authorities must be prepared to explain the legal basis for their action and demonstrate compliance with the applicable safeguards.
Article 21 of the Constitution of India protects life and personal liberty, providing that no person shall be deprived of either except according to procedure established by law. The constitutional protection extends to persons generally, rather than being confined exclusively to Indian citizens.
The Court’s oral observations do not, by themselves, amount to a final ruling on the man’s nationality or the legality of every aspect of the proceedings. Instead, they highlight the importance of examining the available evidence and ensuring that coercive state action rests on a lawful foundation.
For further developments, readers can explore The Legal Observer’s national legal news coverage and its broader news section.
The case brings renewed attention to the safeguards that must govern deportation proceedings, particularly where a person’s nationality is disputed. The outcome will depend on the legal issues placed before the competent Bench and the material available for consideration.
For more legal updates and discussions on important court proceedings, readers may also visit The Legal Observer’s YouTube channel.
