On November 4, 2024, the Supreme Court of India agreed to examine a petition filed by the Jharkhand Government against an interim order from the State High Court. This order called for the establishment of a fact-finding committee, which would include Central officers, to investigate allegations of illegal immigration from Bangladesh into the state.
Background of the Case
The High Court's September order was primarily based on an affidavit from the Union Government, which stated that "infiltration has been assessed to have taken place." In response, the Jharkhand Government challenged this assertion, arguing that the conclusions drawn were not supported by substantial data.
A bench consisting of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah scheduled the case for a hearing on November 8, 2024. Justice Dhulia remarked that the state's appeal raises significant issues, necessitating a careful review of the documents.
High Court's Intervention
Justice Amanullah raised questions regarding the necessity of the High Court’s intervention, emphasizing that the state has the legal authority to address such issues independently if they exist. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the state, requested a stay on the High Court's order, noting that Jharkhand is not a border state and expressing concerns that the ruling had become a talking point in the lead-up to the Assembly elections.
Public Interest Petition
The High Court's decision stemmed from a public interest petition filed by Danyaal Danish, who alleged that illegal immigration and infiltration were widespread in several districts, including Godda, Jamtara, Pakur, Dumka, Sahibganj, and Deoghar. The petition claimed that the demographic landscape of Jharkhand, particularly in the Santhal Pargana region, was undergoing rapid changes, resulting in a decline in the tribal population.
The petition asserted that the interests of the tribal community in Jharkhand were at risk, citing a decline in tribal representation from 44.67% in 1951 to 28.11% in 2011, while the Muslim population rose significantly during the same period. The High Court criticized the state for adopting a “lackadaisical approach” toward the issue.
Supreme Court’s Considerations
In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the Jharkhand Government argued that the High Court's order relied on outdated population data from 1961 and 2011, failing to reflect the current situation on the ground. The state contended that the formation of a fact-finding committee would interfere with its autonomy and ability to manage issues related to illegal migration, which they deemed non-existent. They also pointed out that the Supreme Court has been addressing related petitions regarding illegal immigration from Bangladesh since 2017.
Foreign Relations Update: India-Canada Ties
In a related development, Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri is scheduled to brief a Parliamentary panel on external affairs about the deteriorating India-Canada relations. This decline follows allegations by Canadian officials linking Indian government officials to the murder of pro-Khalistani terrorist Harjeet Singh Nijjar.
Misri is also expected to discuss the recent improvements in India-China relations, particularly after an agreement to resume patrolling at conflict points along the Line of Actual Control in eastern Ladakh.
India's relationship with Canada has significantly worsened since Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made allegations against top Indian officials. In response, India has maintained that Canada must address the presence of pro-Khalistani elements operating freely on its soil. Recently, India withdrew its High Commissioner to Canada and expelled six Canadian diplomats, highlighting the escalating tensions between the two nations.
Comments