=======================================================================
Hon'ble Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee : The Calcutta High Court just said what I proposed in January 2020 — 6 years ago !
Dear Hon'ble Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee,
Calcutta High Court, Kolkata
[ hc-calcutta@nic.in ]
Dear Shri Amit Shah ji,
Union Home Minister, Government of India
[ hm-hmoffice@gov.in ]
On 7 May 2026, the Calcutta High Court — in a ruling by Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee — refused to quash criminal proceedings against Sampa Sarkar, a 27-year-old Bangladeshi Hindu woman from Khulna district, accused of overstaying in India without a valid visa under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025.
The key principle laid down by the Hon'ble Court :
" A plea of fear of religious persecution must be supported by credible evidence. Under the Immigration and Foreigners Act 2025, the burden lies on the individual concerned to prove entitlement to exemption from immigration requirements. "
[ Source : Times of India — HC: Onus on infiltrator to prove religious persecution — 07 May 2026 ]
[ Also reported : Live Law — Calcutta HC refuses to quash case — religious persecution plea must be proved ]
My reaction ?
Your Lordship has just articulated — in precise legal language — what I had proposed as the central pillar of a compromise CAA amendment, in January 2020.
Six years ago.
My January 2020 proposal — CAA Compromise : With Malice towards None :
>> CAA Compromise : With Malice towards None [ 22 January 2020 ]
In that blog — written at the height of the nationwide CAA protests, when hundreds of TV debates were generating heat but no light — I had proposed a completely rewritten amendment, which I called the :
Religiously Persecuted Foreign Minorities ( Grant of Citizenship ) Act, 2020 — [ RPFM ]
The core of my RPFM proposal had four elements :
[ A ] Country of foreigner : Open to persons from ANY country in the world — not just three neighbouring countries
[ B ] Religion of foreigner : Open to persons from ANY religious community — not just six specific religions
[ C ] Status of foreigner : In their own native country, the applicant must belong to a religious minority which has been or is currently being persecuted for their religious belief
[ D ] Proof of persecution : While applying, the foreign person would need to PROVE to the satisfaction of the Home Ministry that he / she was persecuted by the majority religious community in his / her native country before entering India
Do you see Element [ D ] ?
The onus of proving religious persecution lies on the applicant.
That is precisely what the Calcutta High Court ruled on 7 May 2026.
Six years after I proposed it.
Why my RPFM proposal was — and remains — superior to the existing CAA :
The existing CAA has three fatal limitations that have driven all the protests and all the litigation :
Limitation 1 — Only three countries
The CAA covers only Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. But religious minorities are persecuted in Sri Lanka ( Tamils ), Myanmar ( Hindus and Christians ), China ( Uighurs, Christians, Tibetan Buddhists ), and many other countries. My RPFM proposal covered ALL countries.
Limitation 2 — Only six religions
The CAA covers only Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians. But Muslims are persecuted in many countries too — Ahmadiyyas in Pakistan, Shias in Afghanistan, Rohingyas in Myanmar. My RPFM proposal covered ALL religious communities. Anyone persecuted for their religion, anywhere, qualifies.
Limitation 3 — No burden of proof
The original CAA did not require applicants to prove persecution. It assumed persecution on the basis of religion + country of origin alone. This created legal and political vulnerability. My RPFM proposal — and now the Calcutta High Court's ruling — says : you must prove it.
One single change — from assumption to proof — transforms the entire legal architecture. It eliminates the constitutional challenge. It eliminates the Muslim exclusion controversy. It eliminates the three-country limitation. And it does so while protecting genuine refugees more comprehensively than the existing CAA does.
The case of Sampa Sarkar — and what it reveals :
Sampa Sarkar, the petitioner in this case, entered India legitimately on a valid passport and visa in December 2024, married an Indian citizen, and then overstayed. She claimed fear of religious persecution in Bangladesh as a Hindu.
The Court rightly said : prove it.
And this is where the gap in India's current system is most painful :
There is no formal, standardised process by which a person like Sampa Sarkar can submit evidence of religious persecution and have it evaluated fairly, transparently, and quickly. The CAA provides a citizenship pathway, but only for pre-2014 entrants. The Immigration and Foreigners Act 2025 provides the enforcement mechanism, but no clear asylum evaluation mechanism.
What is missing — and what I proposed in January 2020 — is a Proof of Persecution Evaluation System : a formal, digital, Aadhaar-linked application process through which any person claiming religious persecution can submit documented evidence, have it evaluated by a trained Home Ministry panel, and receive a fair determination within a defined timeframe.
What remains unimplemented — and what I urge the Government to do NOW :
1. Amend the CAA to remove the three-country and six-religion restrictions
Replace these with the RPFM framework : any country, any religion, but only those who can prove persecution. This is constitutionally unassailable — it does not discriminate by religion or country of origin. It discriminates only by the fact of persecution.
2. Create a Persecution Evidence Digital Portal
Applicants can upload : affidavits, witness testimonies, news reports from their country, human rights organisation reports, photographs, and voice/video recordings. The portal uses AI to classify, verify, and cross-reference submitted evidence against global human rights databases ( UNHCR, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch ).
3. Establish Fast-Track Persecution Tribunals
One per state bordering Bangladesh, Pakistan, Myanmar, and Sri Lanka. Staffed by retired judges and human rights experts. 90-day decision timeline. Appeals to the High Court only on questions of law.
4. Aadhaar-link the entire process
Every applicant receives a biometric-linked case ID from Day 1. Their status is visible in real time on the portal — to them, to the court, and to the public. No document can be lost. No official can claim ignorance of the case status.
The larger irony :
India spent three years in political turmoil, nationwide protests, and Supreme Court litigation over a CAA that — in the view of millions of Indians — discriminated by religion and country of origin.
All of that could have been avoided.
If someone had read my January 2020 blog.
The RPFM proposal — any country, any religion, proof required — is not just legally cleaner than the CAA. It is more generous to genuine refugees. It covers more people, from more countries, of more faiths. And it does so without any constitutional vulnerability — because it discriminates only on the basis of a demonstrable fact : persecution. Not on the basis of religion or nationality.
The Calcutta High Court has now, in a single ruling, validated the central pillar of that proposal : the onus to prove persecution lies on the applicant.
Six years late. But the direction is right.
The next step is to build the system that makes proof-of-persecution possible, fair, fast, and credible.
With regards,
Hemen Parekh
09 May 2026 | Mumbai
hcp@RecruitGuru.com | www.hemenparekh.ai
PS : Chat with my Digital Avatar at www.hemenparekh.ai
No comments:
Post a Comment