The Calcutta High Court has strongly reprimanded the West Bengal government for detaining a Murshidabad resident for more than a month, branding him a ‘Bangladeshi’.
Published: September 19, 2026, 8:54 AM IST
Share Article
https://www.india.com/news/india/will-you-lock-up-everyone-who-came-of-age-in-70s-and-80s-hc-slams-bengal-government-for-detaining-murshidabad-man-8527421/
‘Will you lock up everyone who came of age in 70s and 80s?’ HC slams Bengal government for detaining Murshidabad man (File)
The Calcutta High Court has strongly reprimanded the West Bengal government for detaining a Murshidabad resident, suspected to be a Bangladeshi, for over a month without any valid reason.
Hearing the case, Justice Saugata Bhattacharya sharply questioned the state government’s stance and advocated for the protection of human rightsThe court reminded the government that large numbers of people had crossed the border in the 1970s and 1980s.
Read more:
Trouble mounts for Mamata Banerjee as Kolkata Police files FIR over high court order violation
Questioning the government’s lawyer, Justice Bhattacharya asked, “What will you do now? Will you initiate action against everyone in this manner, violating human rights?” This remark underscores the need to maintain a balance between law and human rights in cases of doubtful citizenship.
Court’s instructions on arrest
Sahidul Sheikh, a resident of Dubapara village in Murshidabad, was detained by Raninagar police on August 8 and has been in the custody of the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer (FRRO) since then.
The court directed the state government to submit Sahidul’s detention or arrest memo to his lawyer by SaturdayThe officer-in-charge of the Raninagar police station was also directed to file an affidavit within 15 days stating the grounds for his detention.
The Murshidabad Superintendent of Police, who also serves as the FRRO, has been directed to file a report within 10 days detailing the steps taken by the stateThe next hearing in the case will be on October 8.
What allegations were made against the government?
Sahidul’s wife, Dejina Bibi, had approached the Calcutta High Court alleging that her husband was being illegally detained by the police, claiming he was a BangladeshiHis lawyer told the court that Sahidul was an Indian citizen and his name was verified and listed in the SIR 2026 listHe also possesses a valid voter ID card, PAN card, and Aadhaar card.
Lawyer Robiul Islam argued that if I am a Bangladeshi citizen, there is a Foreigners Act for thisIf I am being detained for any reason, I should be given a detention memo.
But nothing like that was providedHow was it assumed that I was a Bangladeshi? He also explained that the couple has a daughter who is taking her higher secondary exams this year.
What is the state government’s claim?
State counsel Raj Mohan Chattoraj claimed before the court that Sahidul himself had admitted that he was a Bangladeshi who had entered India several years ago.
He claimed to be the son of a deceased local resident and obtained authentic-looking Indian documents, using which he secretly joined SIR 2026The matter is currently under investigation, they said.
Why no action against the officer?
Justice Bhattacharya pointed out that it was unclear whether Sahidul confessed to the police or the FRROThe judge asked how long this verification process would takeIt was not known when he crossed the borderMany people crossed the border in the 1970sHow could this man be detained for so long?
The judge also asked on what basis Sahidul’s documents were considered invalidRegarding the alleged fraudulent inclusion of names in the SIR, the judge said, “So, you need to initiate proceedings against that officer as wellA person has been detained since August 8th, and we are in mid-September, and no documents have been handed over yet? Will a person be detained without any reason?”
The state lawyer argued that Sahidul was arrested based on inputs from the FRROHe said that the Raninagar police station does not arrest people without reasonBengal police officers do not arrest anyone without reason.
He also objected to handing over the memo to Shahidul’s lawyer, citing the Official Secrets Act, but Justice Bhattacharya overruled his objection.
