The Calcutta High Court on May 6 held that the burden to prove religious persecution as a reason for migrating from Bangladesh to India lies on the infiltrator and not the state. Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee 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 after visa expiry claimed religious persecution.
Court's Observation
Justice Mukherjee noted that the petitioner must prove she is exempted under Order 3(e) of the Immigration and Foreigner (Exemption) Order, 2025, especially when the state argues that her plea of fear of religious persecution is an afterthought cooked up after proceedings were initiated for illegal overstay. The court did not comment on the merits of the case, leaving it for trial.
Criteria to Prove Religious Persecution
To establish fear of religious persecution, the woman must provide credible testimony answering what, when, where, and how of the persecution; documentary evidence such as police reports, medical records, threatening letters, or injury photographs; proof that she was forced to hide her religious belief to avoid persecution; and evidence of legal discrimination or loss of employment due to religious identity.
Case Background
The woman from Bangladesh's Khulna district entered India via Ghozadanga Land Border on December 7, 2024, on a tourist visa. She married an Indian and settled in Raipur. Her visa expired on January 6, 2025. In December 2025, marital discord arose, and she approached Bongaon police with a complaint of physical and mental harassment against her husband and his family. Her counsel claimed no complaint was registered; instead, on December 29, 2025, a complaint was filed against her under Section 21 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act for entering India without a valid passport, visa, or travel document.
Arguments
Her lawyer argued that as a Hindu minority from Khulna, she entered as a religiously persecuted victim. However, the state counsel countered that her visa was tourist-based, and claims of religious persecution should ideally be made at entry or when the threat becomes known. The court's ruling emphasizes that the burden of proof lies with the individual claiming persecution, not the state.
