The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday deferred hearing a habeas corpus petition concerning the deportation of a man's family members, after the Union government strongly objected to the maintainability of the plea, arguing that no part of the cause of action arose in West Bengal.
A division bench comprising Justices Reetobroto Kumar Mitra and Tapabrata Chakraborty listed the matter for September 11, allowing the petitioner’s counsel time to gather further instructions on the jurisdictional challenge.
Background
The petition, filed by Bhodu Sekh, alleged that his daughter, son-in-law, and minor grandchild were "illegally deported in hot haste" by authorities in late June. The deportation order dated June 26 was passed just two days after a detention order was issued, which the petitioner claims was not properly justified.
However, the central government's lawyers, led by Additional Solicitor General Ashok Kumar Chakraborty, contended that the entire incident - from the representation to the deportation - centered around Rohini Police Station in Delhi.
"The petitioner himself addressed his grievance to the SHO Rohini and even threatened to approach the Delhi High Court under Article 226," argued the ASG.
The ASG also pointed out that the petitioner did not challenge the deportation order itself, making the habeas corpus plea legally untenable. More seriously, he alleged that the petitioner suppressed the fact that two earlier writs had been filed before the Delhi High Court - one of which was dismissed and the other withdrawn without permission to re-file elsewhere.
Deputy Solicitor General Dhiraj Trivedi, appearing for Delhi Police, reinforced this, stating,
"He cannot claim ignorance about the Delhi cases. His own representation mentioned seeking remedy there."
Mr. Raghunath Chakraborty, counsel for the petitioner, refuted the claims. He argued that a part of the cause of action did arise within West Bengal since the family belonged to the state and the deportation affected them here.
"When fundamental rights are violated, technicalities cannot override justice," he submitted.
He also emphasized that the state respondents had not adequately responded to queries raised by the court in its July 11 order.
After hearing both sides, the bench noted the need for the petitioner to conclusively address the maintainability issue. The counsel for the petitioner sought more time to take instructions, which the court allowed.
The matter will now be heard under the 'To Be Mentioned' category in the daily supplementary list on September 11.
The court's final decision on whether it has the jurisdiction to hear the case will determine the future course of the plea.
Case Title: Bhodu Sekh vs. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: WPA (H) 50 of 2025