Family claims they are Indians, Supreme Court halts deportation of six until papers verified

“The authorities are directed not to take any coercive action against the petitioners till an appropriate decision is taken in the matter,” the bench said.

The bench added that the family can approach the HC of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh if they are dissatisfied with the decision taken by the authorities.

However, the court stressed that it was passing the order in view of the peculiar facts of the case and the same should not be treated as a precedent in any other cases of deportation and others.

The petitioner, Ahmed Tariq Butt, claimed to have moved with his family from Mirpur in PoK to Srinagar in 1997. His plea said he is an Indian national with a valid passport and Aadhaar card and that his family comprises his father, mother, elder sister and two younger brothers.

The family faced deportation to Pakistan following the Pahalgam terror attack.

Butt said his family were residents of Mirpur until 1997, when his father moved to Srinagar. He and the other family members moved there in 2000, and the siblings were educated in a private school there.

Butt said the MHA passed an order dated April 25 this year, directing Pakistani nationals to leave India, and a notice was issued to him and his family by the Foreigners Registration Office, Srinagar. “In the said individual notices, the FRO has illegally and baselessly claimed that the Petitioner No. 1 (Butt) and his family members have entered India in 1997 and there was an obligation to leave India on expiration of their visa on the premise that they are Pakistani nationals,” the plea said.

Seeking the court’s intervention, he said his “father, mother, sister and a younger brother were arrested by J&K Police on April 29 at around 9 pm illegally” and “were taken to the India-Pakistan border on April 30 around 12.20 pm”. He said they “are at present being forced to leave India from the border” and that “deportation is imminent even though they are Indian nationals.”

On Friday, the counsel appearing for the family – husband, wife and 4 children – said while one of the petitioners was in Bengaluru, the others resided in Srinagar.

Justice Surya Kant, while referring to the contention that the petitioner number 1 (son) came to Srinagar in 1997, wondered how did he come to India.

The bench was unhappy to note a lack of clarity in the reply of the counsel and said “these are basic things you should have mentioned in the petition.”

The court was also unhappy with the reply to its query as to how the father of the petitioner moved to India. “That is the whole problem. Now all contradictory averments are being made…” said Justice Surya Kant.

The counsel contended the passport issued by Government of India had not been revoked.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the petitioners should have approached the authorities. “All these things need to be verified. Otherwise, this may become a template,” he said, adding there is a judgment which says those overstaying visas are no longer entitled to stay in the country.

To this, Butt’s counsel said the family had been arrested for deportation. As the court was to dictate its order that the deportation be put on hold till final decision, Mehta urged the court not to do so and said “he will take care”. The bench felt such oral undertaking may give way to uncertainties and said that “they should not be deported for now” in the order.