The Meghalaya High Court has cautioned that it may grant compensation to a Bangladeshi national who has remained behind bars for more than a year after completing his six-month prison sentence, holding that his continued incarceration while awaiting nationality confirmation amounts to illegal detention.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice W Diengdoh issued the warning during a hearing on September 8, ruling that administrative delays by diplomatic missions cannot justify depriving an individual of liberty once a judicial term concludes. To address the situation immediately, the judges directed the Inspector General of Prisons to appear in person on September 9 to explain where the man will be accommodated following his release.
Prolonged Incarceration Ruled Unlawful
The matter came before the court after the state’s Assistant Advocate General explained that the individual remained in prison because authorities were still waiting for the Assistant High Commissioner of Bangladesh to verify his nationality.
Rejecting that argument, the bench observed that completing a criminal sentence and completing subsequent administrative formalities are entirely separate matters. The judges stated that once the prisoner had served his term, he ought to have been transferred to a detention centre or deported rather than kept inside a correctional facility.
The court emphasised that retaining the foreign national in jail beyond his designated sentence constitutes unlawful detention, noting that his term had expired nearly a year earlier.
Lack of Consular Response No Ground for Delay
Addressing the government’s reliance on pending diplomatic inquiries, the high court noted that securing an official response from the foreign mission could take months or even years. However, the bench made clear that such potential delays do not give authorities the right to let an individual languish in prison.
The judges observed that officials had an obligation to initiate verification procedures with the Bangladeshi mission at the inception of the legal proceedings, rather than allowing the timeline to drift past the end of the sentence. The bench cautioned that continued detention under these circumstances would compel the court to consider ordering monetary compensation for the unlawful imprisonment.
