Supreme Court Asserts Immunity from Media Influence in Bangladesh Deportation Case

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court on Friday stated it remains "completely immune" to publicity-driven reporting on pending cases, while expressing concern that half-baked truths and uninformed commentary on sub-judice matters negatively impact public perception.

These remarks came during a hearing about the repatriation of individuals deported to Bangladesh, allegedly without following proper procedural protocols.

During proceedings, the court was informed that Sunali Khatun, a pregnant woman, and her eight-year-old son have returned to India and she is currently receiving medical attention at her father's residence in Birbhum, West Bengal.

A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, alongside Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, scheduled January 6 to hear the Centre's appeal challenging a Calcutta High Court judgment that ordered the repatriation of certain individuals deported to Bangladesh, allegedly without adherence to due process.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, expressed strong objections to a news report published in an English newspaper regarding the case. He described the coverage as "tabloid-like" and suggested attempts were being made to construct particular narratives aimed at influencing the case outcome.

While acknowledging the bench would not be influenced by such reports, Mehta expressed concern about apparent attempts to build specific narratives, stating, "My faith was shaken."

Justice Bagchi responded firmly: "We are completely immune from publicity and pseudo-publicity stunts. Narratives should not affect the lives of individuals."

The Chief Justice advised Mehta to "just ignore them" but added, "Ideally, ill-informed running commentary on sub-judice matters should not be made." He further elaborated, "The problem is half-baked distorted facts and ill-informed facts are being reported."

"Reporting that a matter is coming up for hearing is fine. But if you thrust your opinion, then that is an issue. The issue is with half-baked truth and ill-informed opinion which affects public perception," the CJI added.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the West Bengal government, referenced media's role in countries like the UK and US, noting that immigration issues form part of a "global discourse" with comments and discussions occurring across various platforms.

"People write opinions in the US and England on immigration. As long as you don't attribute motive, it is not sacrilege," Sibal observed.

At the beginning of the hearing, senior advocate Sanjay Hegde highlighted the situation of another deportee, Sweety Bibi, who remains stranded with her husband and two children. Hegde offered to provide documentation proving their Indian citizenship and requested the Solicitor General to consider the case on humanitarian grounds, noting that "that side of the border is very difficult for Indians."

The Solicitor General assured Hegde he would examine the matter, though verification might require some time. The court indicated that once documents are verified, procedures for their return could be arranged in a time-bound manner.

The case involves families who had been working as daily wage laborers in Delhi's Rohini area for approximately two decades. They were detained by police on June 18 on suspicion of being illegal Bangladeshi immigrants and deported on June 27.

In its contested ruling, the Calcutta High Court had observed that the deportation violated the Union Home Ministry's established protocols, which mandate an inquiry by the state government prior to deportation. The high court noted that the "overenthusiasm" in deporting the detainees had disturbed the "judicial climate."

Sibal reiterated this point during the hearing, stating, "The Union does no inquiry for 30 days before deporting them."