No Deportation Of Alleged Bangladeshi Woman Till CAA Citizenship Application Is Decided: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has directed that a Bangladeshi woman convicted under the Foreigners Act shall not be deported to Bangladesh until her application for Indian citizenship under the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, is decided.

Justice Jay Sengupta passed the direction while dismissing the woman's appeal against her conviction as not maintainable, noting that an appeal against an order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Bongaon, ought to have been filed before the concerned Sessions Court.

The Court directed that upon completing her sentence on October 21, 2026, or earlier if entitled to release after remission, the woman be released from the correctional home and accommodated at an appropriate holding centre with all necessary amenities for decent living. She cannot be deported to Bangladesh while her citizenship application remains pending.

The Court observed that although the appeal was not maintainable before it, the matter had remained pending for a considerable period and the woman was due to complete her sentence shortly.

“Although the appeal is not maintainable before this Court, as the matter had remained pending before this Court for a considerable time, this Court is constrained to exercise its inherent powers to pass certain directions,” Justice Sengupta observed.

The appeal was filed by Oishe Biswas challenging a January 4, 2025 judgment of the ACJM, Bongaon, North 24 Parganas, which had convicted her under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act and sentenced her to two years' imprisonment along with a fine of ₹10,000. In default of payment, she was to undergo a further six months of simple imprisonment.

The appellant's counsel submitted that she had entered India in 2011 out of fear of religious persecution in Bangladesh and subsequently married and settled in India. It was argued that she was covered by the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, read with the Citizenship Act, 1955, and the Immigration and Foreigners (Exemption) Order, 2025. Her application for Indian citizenship was stated to be pending.

The State also submitted that the appellant appeared to be covered by the relevant statutory provisions and the 2025 exemption order. It was further pointed out that she would complete her sentence on October 21, 2026, and could be considered for release earlier if remission was applicable.

The Union of India submitted that the 2019 amendment and the 2025 order might benefit the appellant, but further instructions would be required regarding the status of her citizenship application. It also referred to the possibility of accommodating persons awaiting deportation at designated holding centres under the Ministry of Home Affairs' guidelines.

**Appeal Not Maintainable Before High Court**

The High Court noted that the appeal had been admitted by a coordinate Bench in October 2025 and that an earlier application for suspension of sentence had been rejected in February 2026. A subsequent application for suspension of sentence was also pending consideration.

However, the Court expressed concern that none of the advocates appearing for the parties had pointed out that the appeal against the ACJM's judgment lay before the Sessions Court rather than the High Court.

“It is unfortunate that it was never pointed out, especially on behalf of the appellant that as the order had been passed by the learned ACJM, Bongaon, the appeal would lie before the Sessions Court and not before this Court,” the order stated.

The Court accordingly dismissed the appeal as not maintainable while granting the appellant liberty to file a proper appeal before the concerned Sessions Court.

It directed that the Sessions Court, if approached, must decide the appeal in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, without being influenced by any observations made by the High Court.

The High Court clarified that the protection against deportation would continue even if the appellant filed an appeal before the Sessions Court, until her application for Indian citizenship under the Citizenship (Amendment) Act was decided.

Case: Oishe Biswas Vs. The State of West Bengal