Supreme Court Grants Entry to Pregnant Woman and Child Amid Controversy

Supreme Court's Humanitarian Decision

New Delhi: On Wednesday, the Supreme Court permitted a pregnant woman and her eight-year-old child to enter India on humanitarian grounds, following their expulsion to Bangladesh months earlier.

A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi instructed the West Bengal government to ensure the child's welfare and mandated the chief medical officer of Birbhum district to provide comprehensive medical care for the expectant mother, Sunali Khatun, including free delivery services.

The court acknowledged the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's statement, representing the Centre, which indicated that the competent authority had consented to allow the woman and her child entry into India solely on humanitarian grounds, while also noting that they would be monitored.

This ruling came during the Supreme Court's review of a plea from the Centre contesting a September 26 decision by the Calcutta High Court, which had overturned the government's deportation order for Khatun and others, labeling it 'illegal.'

The bench also mentioned that the pair would eventually be returned to Delhi, from where they had been deported to Bangladesh.

However, senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Sanjay Hegde, representing Khatun's father, argued that it would be more suitable for her and her child to be taken to their home district of Birbhum in West Bengal, where her father lives.

They also highlighted that Khatun's husband and others were still in Bangladesh and needed to be brought back to India, suggesting that Mehta should seek further instructions on this matter.

Mehta countered that he would dispute their claims of Indian citizenship, asserting that they were Bangladeshi nationals, and emphasized that the government was allowing the woman and her child entry purely on humanitarian grounds.

Justice Bagchi remarked that if Khatun could prove her identity as the daughter of Bhodu Sheikh, it would suffice to establish her Indian citizenship.

The Supreme Court has scheduled the next hearing for December 10.

Khatun's father claimed that their family, who had been daily wage workers in Delhi's Sector 26 for over twenty years, was detained by police on June 18 under suspicion of being Bangladeshi nationals and subsequently pushed across the border on June 27.

On December 1, the Supreme Court directed the Centre to consider allowing the woman and her child to enter India while keeping them under surveillance.

The court had instructed Mehta to seek guidance on permitting the woman, who is nearing her delivery date, to cross into India via the Indo-Bangladesh border at Malda in West Bengal.

Hegde, representing Sheikh, stated they were awaiting entry from the Bangladesh side.

He reiterated that their deportation to Bangladesh was deemed illegal and asserted their status as Indian citizens.

On September 26, the high court annulled the Centre's deportation order for Khatun and Sweety Bibi, both from Birbhum district, along with their families, labeling them as 'illegal immigrants.'

The high court mandated the Centre to ensure the return of the six deported individuals to India within a month and dismissed the government's request for a temporary stay on the ruling.

The high court had issued two orders related to a habeas corpus petition filed by Sheikh, who claimed his daughter and her family were detained in Delhi and forcibly sent to Bangladesh.

Another petition from Amir Khan, also from Birbhum, made similar allegations regarding his sister Sweety Bibi and her children.

Reports indicated that the deportees were subsequently arrested by Bangladeshi authorities.

The high court noted that the Centre's affidavit stated that the Foreigner Regional Registration Office (FRRO) in Delhi had been repatriating illegal migrants from Bangladesh as per a directive from the Union Home Ministry.

The memo outlined the procedures for deportation, indicating that inquiries would be conducted by the relevant state government or Union Territory before deportation processes commenced.

In its ruling, the high court criticized the authorities for conducting the deportation proceedings hastily and in violation of established protocols.

The court remarked that 'the detainees have relatives residing in West Bengal... the apparent eagerness to deport them raises concerns and disrupts the judicial environment in the country.'