The Supreme Court has stepped into a sensitive and complex matter involving allegations that Bengali-speaking Muslim migrants are being detained and deported without following due process. During the hearing, the Centre strongly contested these claims, arguing that the issue must be viewed through the lens of national security rather than through the narrow prism of language or regional identity. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of the government, argued that India has been facing systematic infiltration by illegal migrants and that agents actively work to enable such entries. He underscored that the country cannot serve as a hub for undocumented migrants, stressing the importance of protecting sovereignty and security.
At the same time, the government was careful to reject the claim that people are being targeted solely because they speak Bengali. Mehta made it clear that detention or deportation cannot be carried out on the basis of language alone, as alleged in the petition. He also raised doubts about why organisations, instead of directly affected individuals, were filing these petitions, hinting that the matter may be politically or ideologically driven rather than based purely on humanitarian concerns.
The bench, led by Justice Surya Kant, pressed the Centre for more clarity, asking if the allegations of language being used as a criterion for citizenship decisions had any basis in fact. The Court pointed out that the matter touches upon two extremely important concerns—national security on the one hand, and India’s long-standing legacy of shared culture and identity on the other. However, the bench also emphasized that any government action must follow due process and could not rely on arbitrary or discriminatory standards such as language.
The petition before the Court was filed by the West Bengal Migrant Workers’ Welfare Board and its chairperson, MP Sameerul Islam. It claimed that Bengali-speaking Muslim workers were being singled out and picked up from states such as Odisha, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Delhi. The petitioners alleged that many of these detentions lacked proper investigation or verification, and in some cases, individuals were summarily deported to Bangladesh.
Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioners, argued that the practice of deporting people without adequately determining their nationality violates both the Indian Constitution and international human rights obligations. He cited troubling examples where Indian citizens with valid documentation were mistakenly deported. In one particularly striking case, a woman was sent to Bangladesh but was later arrested there as an Indian national once her documents were verified by authorities, exposing the flaws in the system.
In response to these concerns, the Supreme Court issued notices to the Centre, asking it to file a comprehensive reply. It also ensured that habeas corpus petitions pending before the Calcutta High Court—filed by families challenging the detentions of their relatives—would proceed without delay. The High Court was specifically directed to verify the citizenship status of affected individuals on a priority basis to avoid further arbitrary action.
This case highlights the delicate balance between national security and individual rights. While the government insists that infiltration is a real and pressing issue that must be dealt with firmly, the petitioners stress that any response must be rooted in fairness, legality, and respect for constitutional safeguards. The Supreme Court’s intervention signals that both security concerns and the rights of individuals must be carefully weighed before reaching a final resolution.
