Court Demands Government Explain Language-Based Detentions

The Supreme Court has instructed the central government to submit a detailed reply, within a week, addressing allegations that Bengali‑speaking Muslim migrant workers are being detained and, in some instances, deported without due legal process. The petition, lodged by the West Bengal Migrant Workers Welfare Board, maintains that these individuals are being targeted on the presumption that their language equates to foreign nationality. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the government’s stance, asserting that the country faces “systematic infiltration” enabled by agents and posing a threat to national security and resources. In response, the bench underscored that language alone cannot serve as proof of citizenship and insisted that individuals already inside the country be processed through proper legal channels rather than summarily pushed back. The bench also asked for clarity on the Standard Operating Procedure under the Home Ministry’s May 2 directive, which authorises detention of suspected undocumented immigrants, while allowing habeas corpus petitions—such as that concerning a pregnant woman named Sunali Bibi—to proceed in the Calcutta High Court without delay.

The SG emphasised that immigration concerns go beyond individual cases, pointing to a broader global challenge: “This is systematic infiltration. Agents are facilitating illegal entry.” He pressed that pressing issues of national security and illegal migration should not be overshadowed by singular human interest petitions. Justice Surya Kant acknowledged the complexity of the situation, noting that while repelling cross‑border entries may be defensible, those already within Indian territory must substantiate their citizenship through fair procedures.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioners, highlighted extreme cases—such as a pregnant woman expelled ostensibly for speaking Bengali—and argued that the Foreigners Act does not sanction detention based solely on such arbitrary presumption. He cautioned that such practices could breach constitutional rights under Articles 14, 15, 21 and 22, as well as international law in absence of Bangladesh’s agreement.

The bench raised pointed concerns about potential bias in enforcing the May 2 circular without sufficient safeguards. “We would like you to clarify whether authorities are using a particular language as a presumption of being a foreigner,” Justice Bagchi queried, while also observing the need to balance national security with shared cultural and linguistic heritage, particularly in border states like Bengal and Punjab. The court reiterated its objection to language-based profiling, stating explicitly that “Bangla is spoken across West Bengal in many dialects” and that “Bangladeshi is not even a language”.

For her part, Mamata Banerjee welcomed these judiciary interventions, affirming that the court’s acknowledgement of Bengal’s historic role as a border region with rich cultural legacy offered reassurance and hope to detained workers. She reaffirmed her faith in judicial equity and emphasised the need to safeguard workers’ dignity and constitutional protections.