Can government presume person is Bangladeshi just because he speaks Bengali? Supreme Court asks

The Supreme Court on Friday questioned the practice of presuming that Bengali-speaking persons are undocumented Bangladeshi immigrants, stressing that language alone cannot be a basis for treating someone to be a foreigner in India [West Bengal Migrant Workers Welfare Board And Anr. Versus Union Of India And Ors.]..A Bench of Justices Surya Kant, Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi was hearing a plea against the alleged detention and deportation of Bengali-speaking labourers, including a pregnant woman who was reportedly sent to Bangladesh from India without due process..During the hearing, Justice Bagchi questioned if citizenship could be decided on the basis of the language a person speaks.“We would like you to clarify the bias – the use of a language as a presumption of being a foreigner,” Justice Bagchi said, addressing the Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta..Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, argued that border authorities were deporting people without following any lawful procedure. He submitted that in one case, a pregnant woman was forced across the border despite having filed a habeas corpus petition before the Calcutta High Court.“This lady has been pushed out forcibly from the country - she is pregnant - without any proof that she is a foreigner. They are saying, Bengali language is a Bangladeshi language. Therefore, people speaking Bengali are Bangladeshis. How can any authority push out any person without any determination whether so and so is a foreigner?” Bhushan said.He added that the woman was then arrested by the Bangladeshi authorities under their Foreigners Act on the ground that she was Indian, highlighting what he described as an unlawful practice by the Border Security Force in India..Justice Surya Kant noted that habeas corpus petitions could not be adjourned merely because related proceedings were pending before the Supreme Court, and requested the Calcutta High Court to take up the matter expeditiously.Bhushan pressed that no authority should be allowed to deport a person without a tribunal order determining their citizenship. Justice Kant observed that foreigners’ tribunals existed only in Assam. Bhushan replied that in practice, Border Security Force (BSF) personnel acted on their own.“Sometimes these BSF people say, you run away to that side or we will shoot you,” he said.Justice Bagchi remarked that any person found within India’s territory must be treated in accordance with law.“Once the person is within the Indian land mass, then there must be some procedure,” he said. .Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, countered by questioning why civil society organisations were raising such cases instead of the individuals themselves approaching the concerned authorities.“Why these organisations come before the Court? Let some individual come. India is not the world’s capital for illegal immigrants,” Mehta said.Justice Bagchi, however, underscored that national security concerns could not justify presumptions based on identity markers such as language.“There are two very sensitive issues. One is our national security. That goes without saying. At the same time, we have an inherited legacy of common culture. We do not say from newspaper reports. We request you to clarify this stance,” Justice Bagchi said.Mehta submitted that there were concerns that illegal immigrants would put a strain on national resources. “There are organisations who are thriving on illegal immigrants... We are just trying to ensure that immigrants don’t eat away our resources. There is a systematic infiltration. We can’t go on media reports,” Mehta said.Bhushan then pointed to the Union Home Ministry’s own guidelines, which required an inquiry by the State government before deportation.“This method of deportation is against their own circular. The circular says first an enquiry had to be made with the State government. In this case without any enquiry they pushed her out of the country,” Bhushan said..The Court proceeded to explore a hypothetical situation of police action under the Foreigners Act.“Let us say there are suspicious circumstances regarding an individual and the police registers an FIR in the foreigners act. Can they not detain?” Justice Bagchi asked.Bhushan accepted that detention was permissible if there was an FIR, but warned that language-based targeting was widespread.“If there is a FIR they can detain. But thousands of people are being detained because they are speaking Bengali,” Bhushan replied..When Bhushan criticised the Solicitor General’s remarks, Justice Kant stepped in to move the matter forward.“Mr. Solicitor, your snide remarks will not get you anywhere.” said Bhushan. The Court eventually directed the Union government to file a reply within a week and clarified that the habeas corpus petition pending before the Calcutta High Court, concerning the citizenship status of one Sonali Bibi, should be heard independently of the present proceedings.Mehta suggested that the issue be tagged with the pending petitions concerning Rohingya refugees, calling it part of a larger problem of infiltration. However, the Bench directed Centre to file a separate response in the present case as well.“There is a systematic racket. There are agents. There are terrorists that have infiltrated. Let them be heard together,” Mehta said.“You have already filed reply in the pending matter, you file your reply in this too...This is a very complicated issue.. A lot of countries are trying to solve this problem...” Justice Kant replied as he posted the matter for further hearing in September. .[Read Live Coverage]