Religious Persecution or Legal Afterthought? Calcutta High Court Refuses to Quash Charges Under Immigration and Foreigners Act

Table of contents

Introduction

In a significant judicial development, the Calcutta High Court has clarified the stringent evidentiary requirements for foreign nationals seeking refuge under the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) framework.

The judgment in Sampa Sarkar Vs. The State of West Bengal and Anr. (CRR 1121 of 2026) serves as a critical precedent for any advocate in Kolkata dealing with the intersection of criminal law and immigration status. The ruling emphasizes that while India provides a humanitarian path for persecuted minorities, the legal “burden of proof” remains a formidable hurdle.

Case Background: From Matrimonial Bliss to Legal Battle

The petitioner, a 27-year-old Hindu woman from Bangladesh, entered India in December 2024 on a valid passport and tourist VISA. She married an Indian citizen but the relationship quickly dissolved into allegations of cruelty.

When she attempted to lodge a complaint against her husband in December 2025, she was arrested and charged under the Immigration and Foreigners Act for overstaying her VISA, which had expired in January 2025.

The Legal Defense: Invoking the CAA

The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings by invoking the Immigration and Foreigners (Exemption) Order, 2025, resting on two pillars:

• Religious Persecution: Claiming she fled Bangladesh due to documented persecution of the Hindu minority.
• CAA Protection: Arguing that as a persecuted minority who entered before the December 31, 2024 cut-off, she falls under the protective umbrella of the CAA.

The Court’s Verdict: Why the Trial Must Proceed

Hon’ble Dr. Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee declined to quash the case, highlighting several key legal principles:

1. The Burden of Proof (Section 16)

Under the Act, the onus is absolutely on the individual to prove they are an “exempted person.” The state is not required to disprove the claim of persecution initially.

2. Subjective vs. Objective Fear

The Court noted that establishing a “fear of religious persecution” requires more than a vague claim. It necessitates credible testimony or documentary evidence of threats—factors that must be tested during a full trial.

3. The Timing of the Claim

The petitioner only raised the plea of persecution after being charged with illegal overstay. The Court agreed that such a “belated claim” could be viewed as an afterthought and must be adjudicated through the recording of evidence.

Conclusion: Navigating Complex Immigration Litigation

This judgment underscores that the CAA is not an automatic “shield” that halts criminal proceedings the moment it is mentioned. Success in such cases depends on the meticulous collection of evidence regarding the specific circumstances of migration long before reaching the courtroom.

While the trial will continue, the Court has directed that the matter be decided expeditiously, balancing humanitarian goals against national immigration policy.

Cause Title: CRR 1121 of 2026 Sampa Sarkar Vs. The State of West Bengal and Anr.
Forum: Calcutta High Court

Advocate Prithwish Ganguli
House # 73, near Tank #10, (Behind Matri Sadan Hospital),
EE Block, Sector II, Bidhannagar (Salt Lake), Kolkata 700091
M.: 99030 16246