The Supreme Court on Friday cautioned against “half-baked truth and ill-informed running commentary” on pending cases, observing that such reporting distorts public perception. The court asserted that it is “completely immune” to publicity-driven narratives while hearing a matter linked to the deportation of certain individuals to Bangladesh allegedly without following due process.
The observations came during proceedings on the Centre’s appeal against a Calcutta High Court judgment that had directed the repatriation of individuals deported to Bangladesh. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi fixed January 6 for hearing the appeal.
During the hearing, the court was informed that Sunali Khatun, a pregnant woman who was among those deported, has returned to India along with her eight-year-old son and is currently receiving medical care at her father’s residence in Birbhum district of West Bengal.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, expressed strong displeasure over an English newspaper report on the issue, describing it as “tabloid-like”. He said attempts were being made to build a particular narrative to influence the outcome of the case. While stating that he was confident the Bench would not be influenced by such reports, Mehta remarked that his “faith was shaken” by the apparent intent behind the coverage.
Responding to these submissions, Justice Joymalya Bagchi said, “We are completely immune from publicity and pseudo-publicity stunts. Narratives should not affect the lives of individuals.” Chief Justice Surya Kant advised the law officer to “just ignore them” but underlined that “ideally, ill-informed running commentary on sub-judice matters should not be made.”
“The problem is half-baked distorted facts and ill-informed facts are being reported,” the Chief Justice said. He clarified that reporting the fact that a matter is listed for hearing is permissible, but added, “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.”
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the West Bengal government, referred to the role of media in immigration debates in countries such as the UK and the US, and said immigration is part of a global discourse. “People write opinions in the US and England on immigration. As long as you don’t attribute motive, it is not sacrilege,” he said.
At the outset, senior advocate Sanjay Hegde highlighted the plight of another deportee, Sweety Bibi, who remains stranded in Bangladesh with her husband and two children. Offering to place documents on record to establish their Indian citizenship, Hegde urged the Centre to consider the case on humanitarian grounds, noting that “that side of the border is very difficult for Indians.”
The Solicitor General assured the court that the issue would be examined, though verification could take some time. The Bench said that once the documents are verified, modalities for their return could be considered in a time-bound manner.
The case relates to families who had been working as daily wage labourers in Delhi’s Rohini area for nearly two decades. They were detained by the police on June 18 on suspicion of being illegal Bangladeshi immigrants and were deported on June 27.
In its impugned order, the Calcutta High Court had held that the deportation violated the Union Home Ministry’s own protocols, which mandate an inquiry by the state government before deportation. The High Court had also observed that the “overenthusiasm” in deporting the detainees had disturbed the “judicial climate.” Reiterating this point, Sibal told the Supreme Court that the Union had not conducted any inquiry for 30 days before deporting them.
