Supreme Court stays deportation of Accenture employee, family to Pakistan
What's the story
The Supreme Court has stayed the deportation of an Accenture employee, Ahmed Tarek Butt, and his family from India to Pakistan.
The order was passed after the family filed a petition in response to the Centre's directives to leave the country following the Pahalgam terrorist attack.
They claimed to have Indian citizenship and submitted evidence, including passports and Aadhaar cards, to back their claim.
Court intervention
Petitioners provided with an opportunity to present their case
In response, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh has directed the Centre to verify the citizenship claims of the petitioners.
It asked all documents and facts to be verified as soon as possible. However, it refused to set a timeline for the process.
Till then, no coercive action against them would be permitted under this judgment, the bench said.
Legal defense
Petitioners' lawyer argues for their Indian citizenship
Advocate Nanda Kishore, arguing for the petitioners, claimed they are legitimate Indian citizens, holding valid passports and Aadhaar cards.
He added two petitioners are employed in Bangalore, while the others live in Srinagar.
He said that the family members from Srinagar were driven by jeep to the Wagah border and are now on the verge of being deported from India.
Case update
Petitioner's father came from Pakistan
When Justice Kant asked how the petitioner's father came to India, the counsel said that the father came there in 1987 from Pakistan.
Butt said he arrived in Srinagar in 1997, after which he surrendered his Pakistani passport to the Jammu and Kashmir High Court and applied for and secured an Indian passport.
He claimed that other members of his family arrived in Srinagar three years later, in 2000, and that they had all obtained Indian citizenship and passports.
Government response
Solicitor General suggests petitioners approach authorities
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta then asked the petitioners to approach the concerned authorities first to verify their claims.
When the court was about to state in its order that they shouldn't be deported till the final decision, SG Mehta requested this statement be removed.
Tushar gave an oral undertaking that "he will take care," but the bench said that oral undertaking may give rise to uncertainties and ordered not to take coercive action.