Introduction:

The Jharkhand High Court, while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Danyaal Danish, issued a significant order directing the state government to deploy its “Special Branch” for identifying illegal immigrants in the Santhal Pargana region. The petitioner highlighted concerns over alleged large-scale infiltration from Bangladesh, particularly in six districts—Godda, Jamtara, Pakur, Dumka, Sahibganj, and Deoghar—leading to demographic changes that threaten the tribal population in these areas. The case, heard by a division bench consisting of Acting Chief Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai, focused on the impact of this alleged infiltration on the tribal communities, for whose protection the state of Jharkhand was formed.

Arguments Presented:

Petitioner’s Standpoint:

The petitioner, Danyaal Danish, brought forth alarming statistics indicating a significant demographic shift in the Santhal Pargana region over the past six decades. According to the data presented, the tribal population, which stood at 44.67% in 1951, had drastically declined to 28.11% by 2011. In contrast, the Muslim population in the region had reportedly increased from 9.44% to 22.73% during the same period. The petitioner’s counsel argued that this demographic change was primarily due to illegal immigration from Bangladesh. He stressed that the continued influx of illegal immigrants could potentially jeopardize the interests of the tribal community, for whose protection the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949, was enacted.

The petitioner expressed concerns that if the tribal population continued to decrease, the very purpose of Jharkhand’s creation—safeguarding tribal rights and interests—would be compromised. The counsel also suggested that the infiltrators were illegally obtaining identity documents such as Ration cards, Voter cards, and Aadhar cards, thereby accessing state welfare schemes meant for the local population.

State’s Argument:

The state, represented by its counsel, acknowledged the challenges faced by local authorities in identifying infiltrators. The counsel admitted that the police and other local administrations were encountering difficulties in distinguishing between legal residents and illegal immigrants. However, the state did not provide a clear explanation as to why the “Special Branch” of the police, which is responsible for gathering intelligence, had not been utilized for this purpose.

The state’s submission implied that although there was awareness of the issue, there was a lack of adequate measures in place to address it effectively. The counsel did not dispute the petitioner’s claims regarding the demographic changes but did highlight the administrative challenges in verifying the legal status of immigrants.

Court’s Judgment:

After considering the arguments and evidence presented, the Jharkhand High Court expressed serious concerns about the demographic changes in the Santhal Pargana region and the potential threat to the tribal community. The Court observed that the issue of illegal immigration, if left unchecked, could lead to the extinguishment of the tribal population in the region, which would be a direct violation of the purpose for which the state of Jharkhand was created.

The Court criticized the state for its lackadaisical approach in addressing the issue, particularly in the issuance of identity documents to alleged infiltrators. The bench was particularly concerned about reports suggesting that Ration cards, Voter cards, and Aadhar cards were being issued based on documents that could not be verified as genuine. The Court noted that these documents were being used by illegal immigrants to access welfare schemes intended for the local population, thus depriving the rightful beneficiaries of these benefits.

In light of these concerns, the High Court directed the state government to immediately utilize the “Special Branch” of the police for identifying illegal immigrants in the Santhal Pargana region. The bench emphasized that the identification process should be thorough, and identity documents such as Ration cards, Voter cards, Aadhar cards, and BPL cards should only be issued after verifying the individual’s legal status through the ‘record of rights.’ This document, which details land ownership, was deemed crucial for establishing the authenticity of the claims made by the individuals seeking these identity documents.

The Court further directed the Deputy Commissioners of the concerned districts to oversee this verification process and to ensure that the identification of illegal immigrants was conducted meticulously. The Court also ordered the state to submit a report on the progress of this exercise in the next hearing, scheduled for August 22.

Considering the gravity of the issue, the High Court also expanded the scope of the case by involving key national agencies. 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 were all made parties to the case. The Court issued notices to these agencies, requiring them to file their responses and provide any relevant information that could assist in addressing the issue of illegal immigration in Jharkhand.

The High Court’s decision also referenced previous Supreme Court rulings, notably in the cases of Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005) and Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (2015), which classified infiltration as an external aggression. The bench suggested that the Intelligence Bureau could play a crucial role in gathering intelligence on illegal immigrants and directed it to submit a report in a sealed cover for the next hearing.