Jharkhand HC Directs State To Use Special Branch For Identifying Illegal Immigrants Allegedly From Bangladesh In Six Districts

It was argued that the infiltration issue is significant in six districts: Godda, Jamtara, Pakur, Dumka, Sahibganj, and Deoghar. It claimed that the influx primarily involves individuals from Bangladesh.

The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai 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.”

The Court reviewed evidence presented by the petitioner, which highlighted demographic changes in the Santhal Pargana region as recorded from Census data between 1951 and 2011.

Advocate Rajeev Kumar appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Rajiv Ranjan appeared for the Respondents.

The petitioner’s counsel pointed out a substantial decrease in the tribal population—from 44.67% in 1951 to 28.11% in 2011—while the Muslim population increased significantly, from 9.44% in 1951 to 22.73% in 2011.

The bench expressed concern over the state's handling of the situation, especially given reports of local authorities, including police, struggling to identify infiltrators. The Court questioned why the "Special Branch," which is tasked with such intelligence gathering, was not being utilized effectively. They noted that the district administration's apparent negligence allowed infiltrators to exploit state welfare schemes using potentially fraudulent documents like ration cards, voter cards, and Aadhar cards.

To address these issues, the Court directed the state to employ the Special Branch to aid in identifying illegal immigrants. The Court added, “Therefore, the State is directed to utilize the Special Branch for the purpose of identification of infiltrators/illegal immigrants. 38.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’.”

Additionally, 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 added as parties to the case. These officials were required to respond to the court's notice.

The Court also referenced past Supreme Court decisions on infiltration, including Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005) and Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha v. Union of India (2015), to underline the gravity of the issue and the potential effectiveness of the Intelligence Bureau's involvement. The Court directed the Intelligence Bureau to submit a report on the matter in a sealed cover.

The next hearing in the case is scheduled for August 22.

Cause Title: Danyaal Danish v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors,

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Rajeev Kumar, Rajendra Krishna, Niteshwari Kumari

Respondents: Advocates Rajiv Ranjan, Sachin Kumar, Prashant Pallav, Parth Jalan, Richa Sanchita, Amit Kumar Das