Bangladesh Repatriation Case: ‘Half-Baked Truths Distort Public Perception’; CJI Flags Media Spin

The hearing quickly turned into a sharp exchange on media coverage, with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta criticising the Times of India for what he called “tabloid-style narratives”.

At the outset, the Court focused on the humanitarian dimension. CJI Surya Kant asked whether the woman petitioner was receiving proper medical care and if she required financial assistance. Her counsel said she was currently staying at her father’s home, where she had returned after working as a domestic worker in Delhi.

Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde informed the Bench that there is another petitioner, a woman with two children, and that documents for all four family members, including the husband, would be submitted today.

Mehta assured the Court that verification would be carried out “in right earnest”. Hegde added that cross-border verification remained difficult “for Indians on that side of the border”.

Appearing for West Bengal, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal said the State already had the relevant documents, even though no party had formally filed them.

The hearing then shifted to the SG’s criticism of media reports. Referring to a Times of India article, Mehta said certain papers were “normally known to run narratives”, adding that TOI and Hindustan Times “should not be reduced to tabloids”.

Justice Bagchi responded: “We are completely immune from publicity and pseudo publicity stunts. This should not affect the lives of individuals.”

CJI Kant agreed that reporting a matter was legitimate. “There is nothing wrong in saying an issue is coming up. The problem is when opinion is thrust. Half-baked truths and ill-informed commentary affect public perception," he added. 

Sibal countered that discourse on immigration and cross-border issues is global. “People write opinions in the US and England. As long as you don’t attribute motive, it is not sacrilege.” Hegde added lightly that lawyers develop “thick skin”.

The CJI ultimately listed the matter for January 6, 2026.

When Mehta mentioned that a contempt petition had also been filed in connection with the issue, Sibal stated there was no intention to pursue it.

The Court recorded that no contempt would be pressed and asked the Union to consider humanitarian cases “wherever appropriate”.

Mehta assured: “Certainly, my Lords. There is no doubt about that.” He added that any stray remark from him risked attracting commentary from “a certain breed of social reformers”.

The Bench said the Union’s arguments would remain unaffected as the Court examines the humanitarian details once the documents are placed on record.

On December 3, the Central government had agreed to bring back a pregnant woman deported to Bangladesh earlier this year along with her eight-year-old son, after the Court had urged that the matter demanded humanity over technicalities. Court was told that the deportation was carried out through official channels, a judicial order recording the government’s position was necessary to enable diplomatic procedures.

In its order, the CJI Kant led bench had recorded that Sunali, who is in an advanced stage of pregnancy, must receive urgent medical supervision. Taking note of a request by Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal for West Bengal, and Sanjay Hegde, appearing for Sunali, the Court had directed that she be allowed to travel to and temporarily reside in Birbhum district, near her close relatives. “The Chief Medical Officer of Birbhum is directed to provide all medical facilities, including delivery-related amenities free of cost. As her eight-year-old child will also accompany her, the child will be provided all assistance,” the order added.

It had clarified that its order is confined to humanitarian relief for Sunali and her child and does not prejudice the Centre’s legal arguments.

Notably, the Centre had filed an SLP against the Calcutta High Court order from September 26, directing that six persons deported to Bangladesh in June be brought back and given full opportunity to prove their Indian citizenship. The deportees included Sunali, her minor son and husband, who lived in Delhi’s Rohini area where she worked as a domestic help.