Calcutta High Court Refuses Relief to Suspected Bangladeshi Immigrant
In a significant verdict concerning border security and illegal immigration, the Calcutta High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a Murshidabad resident seeking to halt the deportation of her husband, who was formally declared a Bangladeshi national. Presiding over the matter, the single bench of Justice Krishna Rao delivered a categorical message to the petitioner’s husband, stating that the burden of proving Indian citizenship rests squarely on the individual. The court held that without submitting concrete documentary evidence to establish legitimate citizenship, individuals detained under illegal immigration guidelines cannot claim free movement across Indian sovereign territory.
Missing from 2002 and 2026 Voter Rolls: Key Discrepancies Emerge
The legal battle stems from a petition moved by Nargis Bibi, a resident of Murshidabad district, challenging the detention of her husband, Salim Sheikh, who has been housed in a transit detention facility since his apprehension on August 31. During the judicial scrutiny of state records, a critical evidentiary disparity surfaced: while Nargis Bibi’s name featured consistently in both the 2002 and 2026 electoral registries, Salim Sheikh's name was completely missing from both iterations. This continuous absence from primary civil records reinforced the state’s classification of the individual as an undocumented foreign national.
Bengal Police Present Seized Documents Under May 2026 MHA Directives
Opposing the petition, state counsel representing the West Bengal Police informed the court that law enforcement personnel recovered incriminating material during the search on August 31 that pointed directly to Sheikh’s illegal Bangladeshi origin. The prosecution explained that the individual was lawfully placed under detention pursuant to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) comprehensive notification issued in May 2026. The central framework empowers state police apparatuses to execute time-bound detection, verification, and deportation protocols for undocumented immigrants residing without legal permits.
High Court Bench: Failure to Show Proof Leaves Authorities No Choice
Countering arguments by the petitioner's counsel that the detention was procedural overreach and carried out without producing the individual before appropriate forums, Justice Rao questioned what other options law enforcement officials have when confronted with a complete lack of identification. Emphasizing statutory investigative timelines, the bench observed that the law provides a 30-day inquiry window, and if a suspect fails to convince either the investigating officer or the court of their citizenship, the state cannot permit them to roam freely within the country. Justice Rao concluded the hearing by demanding verified historical records from the 2002 voter list, ruling that unsubstantiated claims cannot avert deportation proceedings.
