![Asla – Watan Sahi [Official MV] Latest Punjabi Song – K Million Music](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/sCuLojys0n4/maxresdefault.jpg "Asla – Watan Sahi [Official MV] Latest Punjabi Song – K Million Music")
KOLKATA: A Bangladesh court has ruled that six persons, including a pregnant woman, who were picked up from New Delhi and pushed into Bangladesh in June this year, were Indian citizens and should be sent back, Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Samirul Islam said on Friday, citing a copy of the court order.
The September 30 order by Chapainawabganj district’s senior judicial magistrate came days after a division bench of the High Court of Calcutta on September 26 ordered the Indian government to bring back the six who were pushed into Bangladesh on orders from the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer (FRRO).
The six were subsequently arrested by Border Guard Bangladesh and jailed for illegally entering the country without travel documents under Bangladesh’s Control of Entry Act, 1952.
TMC MP Samirul Islam, who is providing legal assistance to the six members of the two families of migrant workers, put out a copy of the Bangladesh court order on social media.
According to this document, the court took note of their Aadhaar identity card and held that it was “evident during the hearing that all the accused persons are Indian citizens” and they had Aadhaar cards.
“The counsel for the accused persons has prayed that the Indian high commission in Dhaka be ordered to take steps so that these people are pushed back into India following Indian law. A copy of this order should be served to the Indian high commission,” the court order said.
The TMC MP told HT that this order “strengthens the position of the petitioners that they are Indian nationals”.
According to the six, they were from West Bengal’s Birbhum district and had migrated to Delhi in search of employment. The six are Sunali Khatun, who is in her eighth month of pregnancy, her husband Danish Sheikh, their minor son Sabir Sheikh and another couple, Sweety Bibi and Kurban Sheikh, and their minor son Imam Dewan.
According to their petition in the Calcutta high court, they were picked up from Rohini in northwest Delhi on June 24 on suspicion that they were illegal Bangladeshi immigrants because they speak Bengali and were pushed across the border on June 26 on the FRRO’s orders.
The Calcutta high court referred to the Foreigners Act, 1946, which was replaced by the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, and acknowledged that under Section 9 of the 1946 Act, it was for the person concerned to prove that they are not foreigners.
“However, such a provision does not empower the executive to pick up a person at random, knock at his/her door and tell him that he is a foreigner,” the order said and referred to the May 2, 2025 memo issued by the Union home ministry.
The September 26 order also quoted a provision from the home ministry memo, which said that if a suspected Bangladesh/Myanmar national claims to be an Indian citizen, then the authorities must ask the state/UT concerned to verify such a claim and send its report within 30 days.
The division bench noted that Aadhaar, PAN card and Voter ID card were not proof of Indian citizenship, and the issue had to be decided by an appropriate court.
“The Aadhaar Card, PAN Card and Voter ID Card were part of the writ petition, however, as none of these aforementioned documents are proof of citizenship and proof of identity, it may not be sufficient to decide the issue of citizenship finally,” the order said.
“Having said this, it cannot be denied that the memo of 02.05.2025 applies only to Bangladeshi and Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar. Thus, if we take the worst-case scenario of the detainees, that they were not Indian citizens, the steps and procedures laid down in the (home ministry) memo ought to have been followed by the concerned authorities,” it added.
The high court also raised questions on the investigation by the police in Delhi.
“A police officer is clearly a person in authority. Insistence on answering is a form of pressure especially in the atmosphere of the police station unless certain safeguards erasing duress are adhered to. Frequent threats of prosecution, if there is failure to answer may take on the complexion of undue pressure violating Article 20(3),” said the order.
