Back
Supreme Court Issues Notice to Centre, Maharashtra Over Alleged of Sahida Fakir
The on Thursday issued notice to the Centre and the Maharashtra government in a petition challenging the alleged and of a West Bengal woman, Sahida Fakir, to Bangladesh without any prior or . The bench, headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, sought responses from the authorities on the grave allegations of that, according to the petitioner, violated multiple .
The case, filed by Sahida's son Sahin Fakir, raises fundamental questions about the legality of the procedures followed by the and the . It also directly challenges the of the standard operating procedure titled ‘’ dated , and the , to the extent they permit removal of persons without adequate .
Background: Deletion from Electoral Rolls
The petitioner's mother, Sahida Fakir, is claimed to be an Indian citizen and a permanent resident of Gobindapur in North 24 Parganas, West Bengal. Her family's roots in the village are said to be well-documented, with her grandfather's name appearing in the 1952 electoral roll and her parents' names in the 2002 roll. However, during the recent Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral roll in West Bengal, her name was deleted. This deletion is currently under challenge before a tribunal.
According to the petition, the family's connection with Gobindapur is further corroborated by a representation signed by 63 permanent residents of the village, including the petitioner and members of Sahida's family, addressed to the District Magistrate, North 24 Parganas, seeking her immediate return to India. The deletion of her name from the electoral roll appears to have been a pivotal trigger for the events that followed, though no competent authority had conducted any inquiry into her nationality before acting against her.
The Alleged Detention and
The petition paints a stark picture of . It states that on , Sahida Fakir, who had been working as a domestic worker in Mumbai for the past 20 years, was intercepted by persons in plain clothes identifying themselves as police personnel. She was forcibly apprehended and taken to a holding centre in Chembur without any warrant or notice. Her Aadhaar card and mobile phone were seized without a receipt, and she was held for over 100 hours without being produced before a Judicial Magistrate or being informed of the grounds of her detention.
The petition specifically alleges:
"No competent authority had, prior to the deprivation of her liberty, conducted a
into her nationality, examined her documentary records, afforded her notice of the allegation against her, or given her an
to establish her Indian citizenship."
Five days later, on July 24, she was handed over to the BSF, taken to an international border, and forcibly pushed into Bangladesh. The petition adds:
"No
of her nationality,
proceeding,
or meaningful opportunity to contest the allegation of Bangladeshi nationality was afforded to her."
Legal Issues Raised
The petition challenges not only the specific action against Sahida Fakir but also the broader legal framework that permitted such . The central contention is that the , including the 2025 SOP and the , lack the necessary safeguards mandated by the Constitution, particularly and . The petitioner argues that any law that permits the removal of a person from India without a into their nationality is and violative of .
, appearing for the petitioner along with , contended before the Chief Justice's bench that the entire process was a . The absence of any , the failure to provide notice or a hearing, and the reliance on a of nationality by executive officers make the illegal. The petition further points out that such actions set a dangerous precedent, potentially allowing the arbitrary removal of any person whose citizenship is questioned, regardless of documentary evidence.
Supreme Court's Response
The Supreme Court, after hearing initial arguments, issued notice to the , the , and other relevant authorities, returnable in four weeks. The court directed the respondents to file their counter-affidavits detailing the procedures followed in Sahida Fakir's case and the legal basis for the SOP of 2025. The bench also expressed concern over the allegations of and the lack of any of nationality before .
While the court did not pass any for her at this stage, the issuance of notice itself signals that the Apex Court is willing to examine the constitutionality of the . The case is likely to be listed for further hearing after the responses are filed, with the possibility of a deeper scrutiny of the framework.
Broader Implications for Immigration Law
This case has significant implications for immigration law and practice in India. The alleged use of a to deport individuals without following the —including a proper inquiry, notice, and an opportunity to be heard—strikes at the heart of the . The Supreme Court's eventual ruling could lay down for all deportations, ensuring that no person is removed from India unless a competent quasi-judicial or judicial authority has determined their nationality.
The challenge to the 2025 SOP and the Immigration and Foreigners Order also raises questions about the executive's power to prescribe procedures that bypass statutory protections under the and the . If the court holds these instruments unconstitutional to the extent they lack safeguards, it could force a comprehensive revision of protocols across the country.
For legal practitioners, the case underscores the importance of immediately challenging any executive action that deprives a person of liberty without a fair hearing. It also highlights the vulnerability of individuals whose names are deleted from electoral rolls, as such deletions can be misused to question their citizenship. The case may prompt greater scrutiny of the SIR process itself, particularly in border states.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's notice in the Sahida Fakir case is a significant step towards ensuring that the state does not take shortcuts when dealing with questions of citizenship and . The allegations—if proven—reveal a deeply troubling pattern of that bypasses the judiciary entirely. As the case progresses, it will be watched closely by civil liberties groups, immigration law experts, and the public at large, as its outcome may redefine the boundaries of state power in nationality matters. For now, the court has given the authorities an opportunity to explain their actions, while the petitioner's mother remains in Bangladesh, separated from her family and her country.
