Jharkhand High Court Directs State Govt To Identify "Illegal Immigrants" In Six Districts Allegedly Coming From Bangladesh

While hearing a PIL highlighting alleged illegal immigration from Bangladesh in the Santhal Pargana region, the Jharkhand High Court directed the state government to utilize its "Special Branch" for identifying "infiltrators/illegal immigrants" in the area in question.

The direction was passed in a public interest litigation (PIL) petition moved by one Danyaal Danish claiming that in six districts– Godda, Jamtara, Pakur, Dumka, Sahibganj and Deoghar, there is wide-scale infiltration of the foreigners who are "mainly coming" from Bangladesh.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai in its August 8 order took note of a document presented by the petitioner on the state's demographic set–particularly the Santhal Pargana region (as per Census 1951-2011). The petitioner's counsel submitted that the percentage of tribal population in the Santhal Pargana region had "decreased drastically"–44.67% in 1951 to 28.11% in 2011, whereas the Muslim population had "increased manifold"–from 9.44% of the total population in 1951 to 22.73 % in 2011.

Referring to charts and data, the petitioner's counsel further said "due to infiltration, illegal immigration etc., the demographic set up of Jharkhand in particular Santhal Pargana Region is changing rapidly", adding that if the population of the schedule tribe decreases in the Santhal Pargana region then the "interest of the State of Jharkhand in particular the tribal community, would be jeopardised".

State must utilise "special branch" for verification of immigrants

Asking the state to respond to the petitioner's submission the bench said, "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".

On the state's submission that local authorities including the police administrations are facing difficulty in identifying infiltrators, the bench said that it fails to understand why services of the "Special Branch" is not being utilised for this purpose which is supposed to give such information.

The bench said that this also revealed the "lackadaisical approach" of the district administration since ration card, voter card and Aadhar Card were reportedly being prepared based on documents that "cannot be said to be genuine", and based on such documents the "infiltrators are utilizing the beneficial schemes" floated by the State meant for the welfare of the local people of the area.

"Therefore, the State is directed to utilize the Special Branch for the purpose of identification of infiltrators/illegal immigrants. 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'," the bench underscored. For context, a record of right is a document containing details of land and its ownership.

Identity documents must only be issued after verifying legal status of immigrants

The high court further directed the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned districts to pass necessary orders to ensure that documents such as –Ration card, Voter card, Aadhar Card or B.P.L. Card etc. are issued only after verifying the 'record of rights'.

Considering the gravity of the issue, the Court ordered that the Director of the Intelligence Bureau, the Director General of the Border Security Force (BSF), the Chief Election Commissioner of India, and the Director General of the Unique Identification Authority of India be made parties to the case. The Court issued notices to them, requiring them to file a response in the matter.

Noting that the issue of infiltration has been considered as an external aggression by the Supreme Court in Sarbananda Sonowal V. Union of India (2005) and Anr. and Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha and Ors. V. Union of India and Ors. (2015) the high court said that the services of the Intelligence Bureau would be "effective" in dealing with the issue, directing it to submit a report on the issue in a sealed cover.

The Court set the next hearing for August 22.

Case Title: Danyaal Danish vs The State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Click Here To Read The Order