The Calcutta High Court on May 6 held that the burden to prove religious persecution as the reason for migrating from Bangladesh to India lies on the infiltrator, not the state. The court refused to quash a case against a 27-year-old Hindu woman from Bangladesh who entered India on a tourist visa, married an Indian, and later claimed religious persecution after her visa expired.
Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, while refusing to quash the case, clarified that the judgment does not comment on the merits of the case, which must be argued during the trial. The court observed that the petitioner is required by law to prove that she is exempted and entitled to protection under Order 3(e) of the Immigration and Foreigner (Exemption) Order, 2025. This is especially relevant given the state's claim that her plea of 'fear of religious persecution' is an afterthought and fabricated after proceedings were initiated against her for overstaying without a valid visa.
To establish 'fear of religious persecution' under Section 3(e) of the Exemption Order 2025, the woman must provide credible testimony detailing the 'what, when, where, and how' of the persecution. She must also present documentary evidence such as police reports, medical records, threatening letters, or photographs of injuries. Additionally, she must prove that she was forced to conceal her religious beliefs to avoid persecution, and show evidence of legal discrimination or loss of employment due to her religious identity.
The 27-year-old woman, originally from Kulna, Bangladesh, entered India via the Ghozadanga Land Border on December 7, 2024, on a tourist visa. She later married an Indian citizen and settled in Raipur. Her visa expired on January 6, 2025. In December 2025, after experiencing marital discord, she approached the Bongaon police with a complaint of physical and mental harassment against her husband and his family. Her counsel stated that no complaint was registered. Instead, on December 29, 2025, a complaint was filed against her under Section 21 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, which penalizes foreigners for entering India without a valid passport, visa, or travel document.
While the woman's lawyer argued that she entered the country as a victim of religious persecution being a Hindu minority from Kulna, the state counsel countered that her visa was issued for tourism purposes. The state further argued that claims of religious persecution should ideally be made at the time of entry or when the threat becomes known.
