The High Court at Calcutta has ruled that a woman convicted under the Foreigners Act shall not be deported to Bangladesh while her application for Indian citizenship under the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, remains pending. Justice Jay Sengupta, presiding over the criminal revisional jurisdiction, issued the directive to ensure that the appellant’s rights under the statutory framework are preserved, despite the procedural dismissal of her current appeal. While the court determined that it lacked the technical jurisdiction to hear the appeal directly from the trial court, it exercised its inherent powers to mandate that the petitioner be accommodated in a designated holding centre with appropriate amenities until her legal status is conclusively determined.

The legal proceedings stem from a judgment delivered on January 4, 2025, by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Bongaon, which sentenced Oishe Biswas to two years of imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹10,000 for violations of Sections 14 and 14(c) of the Foreigners Act. The appellant, who entered India in 2011, contended that her migration was driven by religious persecution in her home country. Following her arrival, she married and integrated into Indian society, eventually filing for citizenship under the provisions introduced by the 2019 legislation. Throughout the litigation, the appellant maintained that she is covered by the protection clauses of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and the more recent Immigration and Foreigners (Exemption) Order of 2025.

Procedural Oversight in Appellate Filing

A significant element of the High Court’s order centered on the maintainability of the appeal. It was observed that neither the appellant’s counsel nor the departmental officers initially recognized that the conviction handed down by the ACJM, Bongaon, fell under the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court for appellate purposes. The failure to identify this correct legal forum resulted in the case being unnecessarily protracted within the High Court’s docket. Despite this oversight, the court underscored that the severity of the circumstances—specifically the impending completion of the appellant’s prison sentence—necessitated a proactive judicial intervention to prevent potential human rights violations upon her release.

Addressing the procedural defect, Justice Sengupta noted the lapse in standard legal practice, stating, “Although the appeal is not maintainable before this Court, as the matter had remained pending before this Court for a considerable time, this Court is constrained to exercise its inherent powers to pass certain directions.” This judicial approach allowed the court to bypass the lack of direct appellate jurisdiction to secure the safety of the individual, directing that while the appeal must be filed before the appropriate Sessions Court to reach a final resolution on the conviction, certain administrative protections were required immediately to ensure the appellant’s welfare.

Interim Protections Pending Citizenship Adjudication

The court’s directive carries immediate practical consequences for the appellant, who is scheduled to be released from the correctional facility on October 21, 2026. Justice Sengupta ordered that, upon the completion of her sentence or earlier if she qualifies for remission, the petitioner is not to be released into a vacuum but must be moved to an appropriate holding centre that adheres to the guidelines established by the Ministry of Home Affairs. These centers are mandated to provide necessary amenities for a decent standard of living, ensuring that the transition from a correctional facility does not result in destitution or state-sponsored abandonment.

Crucially, the court established a definitive stay against the deportation of the appellant. By linking this protection to the pending status of her citizenship application, the High Court has created a shield that guards the petitioner against involuntary return to Bangladesh while the administrative authorities process her claim for Indian nationality. The order clarified, “The appellant shall not be deported to her country Bangladesh till her application for Indian citizenship is disposed of.”

The Union of India, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, acknowledged during the hearing that the 2025 Exemption Order might indeed benefit the appellant, although it requested further instruction regarding the specific status of her pending citizenship file. To maintain the integrity of the process, the court’s order remains binding even if the appellant exercises her right to appeal the conviction in the Sessions Court. Should she file such an appeal, the Sessions Court is expected to adjudicate the matter on its own merits, unburdened by the specific observations made during this High Court proceeding.

By dismissing the current appeal as not maintainable, the High Court has effectively reset the procedural clock for the appellant, allowing her to approach the correct appellate authority. However, by coupling this dismissal with firm directions against deportation and specific requirements for the provision of a holding centre, the court has balanced its strict adherence to procedural jurisdictional requirements with the constitutional protection of the individual’s potential citizenship status. The finality of the appellant’s legal status will now await the outcome of the upcoming proceedings before the Sessions Court and the administrative review of her application under the Citizenship (Amendment) Act. The appellant remains in the custody of the correctional facility until her scheduled release, at which point the mandated protections will take effect.