Right To Life & Equality Are Implicit Human Rights, Not Restricted To Citizens: Calcutta HC Orders Release Of Pakistani Man Imprisoned Despite Serving Sentence
The Calcutta High Court has recently ordered the release of a Pakistani national who remained in prison, even after serving the full length of their sentence under the Foreigners Act, 1946.A single bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya observed: Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India are [not] restricted to Indian citizens, but are available to any person on the soil of India. In...
The Calcutta High Court has recently ordered the release of a Pakistani national who remained in prison, even after serving the full length of their sentence under the Foreigners Act, 1946.
A single bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya observed:
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India are [not] restricted to Indian citizens, but are available to any person on the soil of India. In fact [it] does not flow from the Constitution but has merely been recognized by the Constitution. Such rights are implicit human rights which are inextricable from a life worth being called a human existence and a person cannot be denuded under any circumstances. The petitioner, having completed his sentence, cannot be retained in further custody, in any prison cell, of whatever colour, texture or dimension. The petitioner no. 2 is entitled to live a life of dignity.
It was submitted by the petitioner that he had come to the country with a Pakistani passport, and valid visa in 2001, but faced trial under the Foreigners Act, and was convicted in 2019 for three years, till 2022.
It was argued that although he should have been released, he remained in custody even after the expiry of his sentence.
Counsel for the state submitted that after the exhaustion of the sentence, the petitioner was to be repatriated to Pakistan, and pending deportation, the person needed to be kept in a cell away from the prisoners, but within the prison compound.
It was submitted that the petitioner had been transported to Tihar jail to have better access to the Pakistani embassy, but that the embassy had refused to accept his citizenship, and due to the complications regarding his deportation, he had remained in custody.
Counsel for the state submitted that a person not being a citizen, could not be allowed to reside freely in the Country, and under the 1946 Act, orders could be passed for arrest and detention for such persons.
Counsel for the Union submitted that the only option was to deport the petitioner, but that would not happen soon, since the Pakistani authorities had refused to accept him.
It was submitted that the petitioner had come with a valid visa, but was convicted of overstaying and that a foreigner's rights were not at par with a citizen's rights.
Court noted that the petitioner even after serving his sentence had remained in prison. After all a prison cell is a prison cell, by whatever name called, it noted.
Court looked at Articles 14 and 21 rights under the Constitution which were available to anyone on Indian soil, and not just citizens, and held that these rights were unfettered, and the petitioner had the right to live a life of dignity.
Accordingly, in ordering his release, the Court noted that the petitioner was in a no man's land and that in such a situation where there was a 'chink' in the armour of the law of the State, the Constitutional court must interfere to preserve his rights.
Accordingly, the release of the petitioner was allowed with certain conditions imposed till the pendency of his appeal against his original sentence.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 64
Case: Monoyara Begum v Union of India
Case No: WPA 1323 of 2024