Jharkhand HC Directs State To Use Special Branch For Identifying Illegal Immigrants Allegedly From Bangladesh In Six Districts
While taking the matter of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh most seriously, we see that the Jharkhand High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest oral judgment titled Danyaal Danish vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors in W.P. (PIL) No. 6547 of 2022 that was pronounced just recently on August 8, 2024 has directed the State Government to take immediate action against the illegal Bangladeshi immigrants entering the State through the Santhal Parganas region. The Court minced just no words to warn that illegal immigration will be on the rise in view of the present unstable situation in Bangladesh. We must note here that the Court also directed the State Government to enlist its “Special Branch” for identifying “infiltrators” of “illegal immigrants” from Bangladesh.
It must also be noted that a Division Bench of Hon’ble Mr Acting Chief Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Hon’ble Mr Justice Arun Kumar Rai who authored this noteworthy judgment gave the direction while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that had been filed by Danyaal Danish. The petitioner – Danyaal Danish pointed out that illegal immigrants from Bangladesh have made their way into the State through the six districts in the Santhal Pargana – Deoghar, Dumka, Pakur, Godda, Sahebgunj and Jamtara. It is definitely a very serious matter and this most serious issue cannot be just glossed over lightly as it directly affects the sovereignty of the nation.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “Reference may be made to the orders dated 3rd July, 2024 and 18th July, 2024.”
To put things in perspective, we see that the Division Bench envisages in para 2 that, “The background in passing the aforesaid orders was the illegal immigrants leading to change in the demography of the country as a whole including the State of Jharkhand. Further, the direction, as contained in the aforesaid orders, has been passed based upon the pleading made in the writ petition as under Paragraphs 2(E) and 2(H).”
Most significantly, the Division Bench minces just no words to underscore in para 3 that, “Further, this Court has passed the aforesaid order taking into consideration the seriousness of issue and the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal V. Union of India and Anr. [(2005) 5 SCC 665] followed in the case of Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha and Ors. V. Union of India and Ors. [(2015) 3 SCC 1], wherein the similar issue of illegal immigrants have been considered to be the external aggression within the meaning of Article 355 of the Constitution of India.”
Do note, the Division Bench notes in para 4 that, “This Court has passed specific direction, vide order dated 3rd July, 2024 as under paragraph-8, upon the competent authority of Central Government i.e., Ministry of Home Affairs, to file an affidavit by taking appropriate decision as to how such situation will be dealt with in tandem with the State Government, but, no affidavit has been filed as per the direction passed by this Court.”
Do also note, the Division Bench further notes in para 5 that, “Further direction was passed upon the Deputy Commissioner of the districts of Godda, Jamtara, Pakur, Dumka, Sahibganj and Deoghar to file separate affidavits by giving details of infiltrators after going through their Aadhar Cards, Voter Cards by comparing it with the Record of Rights to establish their residency in the area which falls under the Santhal Pargana region, which is to be dealt with under the provision of Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949.”
In addition, the Division Bench notes in para 6 that, “It has further been directed in order dated 3rd July, 2024 that the immediate steps be taken in addition to the identification and deportation by way of preventive measures, so that, there must not be any further infiltration in the area, which was directed to be personally monitored by the Chief Secretary of the State.”
On a serious note, the Bench while taking potshots points out in para 7 that, “The matter was again heard on 18th July, 2024. It is evident from order dated 18th July, 2024 that though the affidavits have been filed in furtherance of order dated 3rd July, 2024, but the same was not sworn by the Deputy Commissioner, as directed by this Court, rather, the same was filed by subordinate to the rank to the Deputy Commissioners. Therefore, the affidavits, so filed by subordinate in the rank to Deputy Commissioners, were rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.”
Resultantly, the Division Bench observes in para 8 that, “Therefore, direction was passed by the Co-ordinate Bench on 18th July, 2024 to file the affidavits as per the direction earlier passed by this Court vide order dated 3rd July, 2024.”
Simply put, the Division Bench mentions in para 9 that, “For ready reference, the order dated 18th July, 2024 is being quoted as under:-
“Since the affidavit has been filed subordinate in rank to the Deputy Commissioner which is contrary to the direction passed by this Court dated 03.07.2024. 2. This Court rejects the said affidavit and directs to file the same as per the direction earlier passed by this Court vide order dated 03.07.2024.””
Truth be told, the Division Bench then states in para 10 that, “It appears that the State has also not filed any affidavit in this regard, however, the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents-State has submitted that the meeting has been convened by the Chief Secretary of the State, in which, he has also participated, wherein, the issue of illegal immigrants has been discussed in detail.”
As things stands, the Division Bench mentions in para 11 that, “He has submitted that the detail, which has been discussed for the purpose of taking decision in this regard, will be brought on record by way of an affidavit.”
Quite glaringly, the Division Bench discloses in para 12 that, “But, it needs to refer herein that the affidavit which was directed to be filed, in pursuant to the order dated 3rd July, 2024 by the Deputy Commissioner of the Districts of Godda, Jamtara, Pakur, Dumka, Sahibganj and Deoghar has not been filed till date, even though, the specific direction was passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 18th July, 2024 by rejecting the affidavit filed on 16th July, 2024 considering the same to be not in consonance with the order dated 3rd July, 2024.”
It cannot be glossed over that the Division Bench points out in para 13 that, “No affidavit has been filed by the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned districts, the reasons are best known to them. The Deputy Commissioners, for any reason whatsoever, ought to have made an application/affidavit showing the reason as to why the affidavits have not been filed.”
What also has to be borne in mind is that the Division Bench then directs in para 14 stating that, “However, we are granting a week’s time to file affidavit in compliance to the direction passed by this Court vide order dated 3rd July, 2024, as under at Paragraph-11 of the said order, wherein direction has been passed to file separate affidavit by the Deputy Commissioner of district concerned by giving details of infiltrators after going through their Aadhar Cards, Voters Cards by comparing it with the Record of Rights to establish their residency.”
As a result, the Division Bench directs in para 15 that, “In view thereof, let a specific affidavit be filed by the Deputy Commissioner of the districts of Godda, Jamtara, Pakur, Dumka, Sahibganj and Deoghar as per direction passed in order dated 3rd July, 2024.”
Be it noted, the Division Bench notes in para 19 that, “At this stage, Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel has sought for leave of this Court to place a document showing the demographic set up in the State of Jharkhand in particular the Santhal Pargana region as per Census for the period 1951 to 2011.”
Frankly speaking, the Division Bench then concedes in para 20 that, “This Court, considering the fact that it is not an adversary litigation rather it is a ‘Public Interest Litigation’ and the document produced by him is having bearing in the instant ‘Public Interest Litigation’, as such permission as sought for by learned counsel is granted.”
Further, the Division Bench mentions in para 21 that, “Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel has placed copy of document showing the comparative tabular chart and pi-chart of Census in between the period 1951-2011 of Santhal Pargana Region.”
Quite worryingly, the Division Bench observes in para 22 that, “Referring to the tabular chart and pi-chart, submission has been made that as per national census, the percentage of tribal population in Santhal Pargana Region has decreased drastically from 44.67% in the year 1951 to 28.11% in the year 2011 whereas, on the other hand, the Muslim population in the said region has increased manifold i.e., from 9.44% of total population in the year 1951 to that of 22.73 % in the year 2011, and if this trends goes on, then days are not far away, the tribal community in the region will become extinct one. However, the percentage of population of others has changed marginally by 3.3% for the said period in that region.”
Most worryingly, the Division Bench then observes in para 23 that, “It has further been submitted due to infiltration, illegal immigration etc., the demographic set up of Jharkhand in particular Santhal Pargana Region is changing rapidly and now the situation in the bordering area of State of Jharkhand is alarming and if it would not be checked and a concrete steps would not be taken by the Government, the situation would be out of control.”
Most forthrightly, the Division Bench wonders aloud in para 24 noting that, “On the basis of said document, issue has been raised that if the population of the schedule tribe will be decreasing in Santhal Pargana region, as would be evident from the aforesaid chart, then the entire interest of the State of Jharkhand in particular the tribal community, would be jeopardised, as such the question would be that for what purpose the tenancy law i.e., Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949 has been enacted and further what will happen to the reservation policy which is being extended to the schedule tribe community.”
On a most serious note, the Division Bench holds in para 25 that, “This Court, considering the aforesaid fact, is of the view that the same is also required to be responded by the State, and if that be so the matter appears to be very serious, in addition to the issue of illegal immigrants as it is a question of extinguishment of tribal community from the State for which the State of Jharkhand was created to protect their interest as also for securing their right, the tenancy law was enacted in the State of Jharkhand i.e., the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949 in the Santhal Pargana area and Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 in the Chotanagpur region.”
Still more, the Division Bench directs in para 26 that, “The State is also directed to respond on this issue by way of filing affidavit by or before the next date of hearing.”
It cannot be lost sight of that the Division Bench notes in para 27 that, “So far as the issue of infiltrations are concerned, Mr. Pallav, learned DSGI appearing for the Union of India has submitted at Bar that as per the decision of the Central Government, hundreds of people have restrained by the Border Security Force from crossing the border of our country, as such this Court posed a question that why such measure is not being taken for the future so that the further the matter of infiltration be taken care of strictly.”
What’s more, the Division Bench mandates in para 28 stating that, “Upon this, the learned counsel for the parties i.e., learned counsel for the petitioner, learned D.S.G.I, appearing for the Central Government and Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Advocate General appearing for the State Government are fair enough to submit that some functionaries are required to be impleaded as party respondent, i.e., (i) The Director General, Border Security Force, New Delhi. (ii) The Director General, Unique Identification Authority of India. (iii) The Election Commission of India through the Chief Election Commissioner. (iv) The Director General, Intelligence Bureau, New Delhi. (v) National Investigation Agency through the Director, New Delhi.”
It would be worthwhile to note that the Division Bench also mandates in para 29 holding that, “Considering the nature of issue and taking into consideration the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarbananda Sonowal V. Union of India and Anr. (supra) and Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha and Ors. V. Union of India and Ors. (supra), this Court is of the view that these functionaries are necessary parties in the proceeding. Accordingly, the Director General, Border Security Force, New Delhi; the Director General, UIDAI; the Chief Election Commissioner of India; the Director General of Intelligence Bureau and National Investigation Agency through its Director, New Delhi be impleaded as party respondents.”
Going ahead, the Division Bench directs in para 33 that, “Let the response by way of affidavit(s) be filed as to how effective mechanism be taken to deal with the issues.”
As it turned out, the Division Bench specifies in para 34 that, “The learned Advocate General, in course of argument, has submitted that the local authorities including the police administrations are facing difficulty in the matter of identification.”
Most sagaciously, the Division Bench points out in para 35 that, “However, we are of the view that the State is having a Special Branch for giving such information, as such this Court has failed to understand that why services of Special Branch is not being utilized by the State for the purpose of identification of the issue of infiltrators.”
Most damningly, the Division Bench brings out in para 36 pointing out that, “Further, the same also is being considered by this Court that the same reveals the lackadaisical approach of the district administration since the ration card, the voter card and even the Aadhar Card have been reported to be prepared on the basis of documents which cannot be said to be genuine one and based upon the said documents the infiltrators are utilizing the beneficial schemes which are being floated by the State to take care of welfare of the local people of the area.”
Quite pragmatically, the Division Bench then directs in para 37 that, “Therefore, the State is directed to utilize the Special Branch for the purpose of identification of infiltrators/illegal immigrants.”
On a similar vein, the Division Bench also directs in para 38 that, “The Deputy Commissioner of the concerned districts since have already been directed to file an affidavit, hence, let such exercise of identification of the infiltrators having Ration card, the Voter card and the Aadhar Card be conducted on the basis of the ‘record of rights’.”
To ensure probity, the Division Bench then very rightly directs in the fitness of things in para 39 that, “The Deputy Commissioner of the concerned districts are further directed to pass necessary order/communication restraining the revenue/competent authority who have been conferred with the power to issue Ration card, the Voter card and the Aadhar Card or the B.P.L. Card etc. and these documents be issued only on the basis of verification of the ‘record of rights’.”
Of course, the Division Bench then rightly points out in para 40 propounding that, “This Court is further of the view that since the issue of infiltration has been considered as an external aggression by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarbananda Sonowal V. Union of India and Anr. (supra) and Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha and Ors. V. Union of India and Ors. (supra), and as such this Court is of the view that the services of Intelligence Bureau will also be effective one to deal with the issue.”
Not stopping here, the Division Bench then directs in para 41 that, “Therefore, the Intelligence Bureau is directed to submit a report on the issue which shall be placed in sealed cover.”
Finally, it is then mentioned in the last relevant para 43 that, “Let this matter be listed on 22nd August, 2024.”
In summary, the Jharkhand High Court deserves to be definitely hailed for taking most seriously the huge illegal immigration that is taking place in flagrant violation of all rules as pointed out in this most commendable judgment! It is the bounden duty of the Jharkhand State Government to rise above vested political interests and place national interests on the top and deal with this key issue most seriously so that the stability, sovereignty and security of our nation in the long term is not adversely affected or compromised in any manner! My very best friend Sageer Khan very rightly said in 1993 in Mackronia locality in Sagar in Madhya Pradesh that, “Why should Muslims from Pakistan and Bangladesh be allowed entry into India when a separate nation was created for them on basis of religion? Those Muslims who preferred to stay in East or West Pakistan in 1947 have no right to now seek refuge in India. US, UK and all the Western countries and their allies who pressurize India to accommodate them never give refuge to these Muslims in their own country and following the old policy of “Divide and Rule” keep exhorting India to be large hearted which cannot be justified under any circumstances! I am ready to say this from any public platform that creation of Pakistan and Bangladesh was a treachery which was committed by power hungry elite in cahoots with two most dangerous countries in the world that is – USA and UK who add “United” before their name but always favour division of other countries and no wonder UN which is their creation also has “United” written first and which accords permanent membership to rogue China where Muslims cannot offer Namaz nor go to mosques and treated as third rated citizens and not to India where Muslims enjoy maximum liberty in the world which alone explains why we see Muslims from Pakistan and Bangladesh desperately trying to seek entry to India to better their future. Mohammad Ali Jinnah who is the founder of Pakistan was a Shia Muslim and we all know that Shias are most brutally killed in Pakistan and even in mosques they are not safe in Pakistan and Indian Muslims who went to Pakistan in 1947 are discriminated and termed “Mohajjir” due to which they want to return to India where there is no such discrimination. Pakistan got split in 1971 inspite of being created on basis of religion in 1971 but India is still united in 1993 and will always remain united.”
How prophetic the words of Sageer Khan have proved. Now the daughter and former PM Sheikh Hasina of creator of Bangladesh – Late Sheikh Mujibur Rahman is compelled to seek refuge in India and she too has blamed USA for the unrest in her country as she refused to allow US any entry in Saint Martin island which it wanted to grab! So what the Jharkhand High Court has directed in this leading case needs to be implemented most strictly in letter and spirit! It thus merits no reiteration of any kind that India can ill afford to take this most serious issue of illegal immigrants casually! No denying or disputing it!
Author Bio
