The Supreme Court on Friday flagged concerns over media commentary in an ongoing case concerning the repatriation of a pregnant woman and her child from Bangladesh.
A Bench comprising of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi was hearing the Centre's appeal against a Calcutta High Court ruling in the matter, when certain media reports on the case were highlighted as problematic.
Justice Bagchi remarked that the Court remained unaffected by such coverage.
“We are completely immune from publicity and pseudo publicity stunts. Just that all this should not affect lives of individuals,” he said.
CJI Kant added that reporting on court proceedings was permissible, but cautioned against opinion being presented as fact.
“Just ignore them. Reporting a matter there is nothing wrong. When reporting that an issue is coming up is also fine. But if you thrust your opinion…” he said.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta earlier expressed reservations about the manner in which the case was being covered, pointing to “tabloids” and a newspaper report.
He suggested that remarks made during earlier hearings were at times taken out of context and used to fuel commentary in the public domain, which, according to him, encouraged a stream of “social reformers” to weigh in on the issue.
"My faith was shaken and I don't want it to be so ... Any word uttered by me here will led to a breed to social reformers to come out,” he told the Bench.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for the West Bengal government, defended the practice of debating such issues in media platforms.
He pointed out how the media has influenced public debates on immigration in countries such as the UK and the US.
He noted that immigration has become part of a broader global conversation, with discussions and opinions widely shared on public platforms.
“But it’s a part of global discourse. People write opinion in US, England on immigration issues etc… as long as you don’t attribute motive,” he said.
CJI Kant then observed that issues arise with the publication of half-baked narratives that have the potential to skew public perception.
"Issue is with half baked truth, ill informed opinion... (it) affects public perception," he said.
The case before the Court concerns a group of people who were detained in Delhi in June and deported to Bangladesh on allegations of being Bangladeshi nationals.
On September 26, the Calcutta High Court had ordered the Union government to bring back six such deported people. Among them were a pregnant woman and her child, who were sent back on the suspicion that they were undocumented migrants. The ruling was passed on a petition filed by the pregnant woman's father.
The High Court had given the Centre four weeks to comply with the directive to bring back the deported individuals, but the deadline passed without all six being returned.
The Central government challenged the High Court's directives before the Supreme Court.
In its appeal, the Union government said the High Court had exceeded its athority, arguing that decisions about deportation and foreign affairs are the responsibility of the executive, not the judiciary.
The Centre maintained that the six individuals are Bangladeshi nationals and questioned whether the High Court can direct the government to bring them back.
However, after the Supreme Court urged the Centre to take a lenient stance, the Centre agreed to bring back the pregnant woman and her child back to India.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on January 6, 2026.
[Live Coverage]