According to sources in The Indian Express, the operation began following a nationwide verification exercise and has seen immigrants rounded up from states as far apart as Gujarat, Delhi, Haryana, Assam, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and Goa. Most of them are then flown by Indian Air Force aircraft to border states such as Tripura, Meghalaya, and Assam — where they are held in makeshift camps, handed over to the Border Security Force (BSF), and “pushed back” across the border into Bangladesh, often within hours.

A senior government official confirmed to The Indian Express that Gujarat initiated the first round of detentions and currently accounts for nearly half of all deportations. “All states with major economic hubs are identifying such illegal immigrants after document verification. The instructions from the Ministry of Home Affairs are clear — the states are complying,” the official said, noting that the crackdown accelerated after the April Pahalgam attacks.

But the scale and method of these deportations suggest clear departures from legal norms. Under Indian law and international obligations, deportation must follow due process — including formal orders, access to legal aid, and verification by Foreigners Tribunals or equivalent mechanisms. None of this appears to be happening in these pushbacks.

The BSF, according to reports in The Hindu, has pushed back over 1,200 people from just one sector of the West Bengal-Bangladesh border. Delhi Police alone has deported at least 120 people since January, followed by Maharashtra (110), Haryana (80), Rajasthan (70), Uttar Pradesh (65), Gujarat (65), and Goa (10). Many of these individuals were transported in secrecy and denied access to legal representation.

Several were reportedly handed some Bangladeshi currency and food before being left at the border, a practice that not only flouts legal protections for non-citizens but also risks statelessness and chain deportations. Alarmingly, a significant number of people, fearing arrest, are voluntarily approaching border regions in panic, indicating the deep fear triggered by the nationwide campaign.

These coordinated actions across states, in the absence of transparent procedures, point to a disturbing trend: a pan-India, informal deportation regime operating outside the bounds of the law, with little accountability or oversight.

1. Uttar Pradesh: 90 alleged Bangladeshi Nationals detained from Mathura kilns amid state-wide deportation drive

On May 17, police in Uttar Pradesh’s Mathura district detained 90 individuals—suspected Bangladeshi nationals—including 35 men, 27 women, and 28 children, from Khajpur village under the Nauhjheel police station. The detentions were part of an identity verification drive targeting migrant labourers working in the area’s brick kilns.

According to Mathura SSP Shlok Kumar, the detainees claimed they had been living in Mathura for the past 3–4 months and had migrated there from a neighbouring state. “All of them are being interrogated, and other investigative agencies have also been roped in,” he told ANI, suggesting that legal proceedings may follow. However, no clarity has been provided on whether these individuals were produced before a magistrate or allowed access to legal aid, raising due process concerns.

The detentions align with a larger, intensified campaign launched by the Uttar Pradesh government to identify and deport what it calls “infiltrators” — targeting primarily Bangladeshi and Rohingya communities residing in the state. Officials have also indicated that action had earlier been taken against Pakistani nationals, and similar efforts are now directed at undocumented Bangladeshi and Rohingya residents.

According to the report of Indian Express, state-wide directive from the Chief Minister’s Office has instructed all District Magistrates, SSPs, and Police Commissioners to accelerate the identification and removal of undocumented migrants, particularly in areas where many are believed to be living under changed or forged identities. Simultaneously, authorities have begun operations against so-called illegal settlements and unauthorised structures, especially in districts bordering Nepal.

The Uttar Pradesh government has publicly claimed to be the first in the country to achieve the deportation of all undocumented Pakistani nationals. “The Chief Minister himself oversees the process,” said a CMO statement, as per the ANI report.

While the state presents this as a national security achievement, rights advocates warn that such sweeping actions, especially those involving families with children, may sidestep critical legal safeguards, including the right to a fair hearing, protections under the Foreigners Act, and India’s obligations under international human rights law.

Uttar Pradesh’s operation is just one piece in a growing national trend that appears to be functioning as a shadow deportation regime, with opaque procedures, little to no judicial oversight, and significant risk of wrongful or arbitrary expulsions.

2. Delhi: 700 alleged undocumented migrants deported under ‘pushback’ drive

In the last six months, nearly 700 undocumented migrants have been deported from Delhi to Bangladesh as part of the Union government’s intensified “pushback” strategy, according to a report by The Indian Express. The pace of deportations notably accelerated in the wake of the April Pahalgam terror attack, triggering a capital-wide verification and detention campaign.

Following the attack, the Delhi Police launched a coordinated drive and identified around 470 individuals as undocumented Bangladeshi nationals, along with 50 foreigners who had overstayed their visas, The Indian Express reported. These individuals were then flown from the Hindon Air Base in Ghaziabad to Agartala in Tripura, from where they were deported via land routes across the Bangladesh border.

Police sources revealed that 3–4 special flights were used over the past month for transporting the detainees. According to The Indian Express, Delhi Police also set up around five makeshift detention centres, coordinated with the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO), and arranged the transfers with the Border Security Force (BSF).

On May 16, thirteen Bangladeshi nationals, including five minors, were detained in Auchandi village in outer Delhi for allegedly living without valid documents, according to an ANI report. They were apprehended during a targeted operation following intelligence inputs, said Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime) Aditya Gautam. On interrogation, the detainees reportedly admitted to being Bangladeshi citizens without any legal documentation permitting them to stay in India.

A week later, on May 23, the Delhi Police detained 121 Bangladeshi nationals suspected of unlawful residence in the capital and initiated deportation proceedings through the FRRO, according to The Hindu. In the same operation, five Indian nationals were questioned for allegedly facilitating the illegal entry and stay of these foreign nationals. A case was registered at Narela Industrial Area police station under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 14 and 14C of the Foreigners Act, 1946.

A Special Investigation Team (SIT) has been formed to probe a suspected syndicate that is believed to have assisted in providing accommodation, jobs, and forged Indian identity documents to the immigrants. Authorities are now examining suspected fabrication of Aadhaar cards, voter IDs, and electricity meter connections, and have issued notices to relevant departments. Legal action has been promised against any official found complicit.

These developments mark a sharp escalation in Delhi’s deportation efforts and reflect the broader national push under Operation Sindoor to track, detain, and remove undocumented migrants, often through processes lacking judicial oversight.

3. Delhi-Ghaziabad: Mass deportations continue as government allegedly sidesteps due process

On Sunday, May 25, around 160 undocumented Bangladeshi migrants, including women and children detained from outer Delhi, were airlifted from Ghaziabad’s Hindon Air Base to Agartala in Tripura to be deported to Bangladesh, according to a report by The Hindu.

Officials told the newspaper that the transfer was in line with the Indian government’s directive to expedite deportations without waiting for formal processes, which are often “lengthy.” This reflects a growing trend of informal and accelerated removals, especially following the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack.

Since the attack, more than 500 individuals have reportedly been sent back through India’s eastern border. Across the country, police forces have been conducting verification drives to identify alleged undocumented immigrants. Once detained, the migrants’ biometrics are recorded, and any Indian identity documents, such as Aadhaar cards, are cancelled. These biometrics are reportedly used to prevent re-entry and re-enrolment in Indian systems.

After biometric capture, the migrants are handed over to the Border Security Force (BSF) and pushed back across the border. The Bangladesh Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in a letter sent on May 8, raised concerns over these forced entries and called on India to respect formal repatriation mechanisms.

Earlier, on May 4, two Air India planes transported around 300 undocumented migrants, including 200 women and children who had been detained in Gujarat, to Agartala. They were subsequently sent across the border to Bangladesh.

At a press conference on May 26 in Dhaka, Brigadier General Md. Nazim-ud-Daula of the Bangladesh Army condemned these deportations as unacceptable “push-ins.”

In just one month since the Pahalgam incident, Delhi Police identified and deported 470 undocumented Bangladeshi nationals and 50 foreign overstayers, flying them from Hindon to Tripura before pushing them across the land border.

An officer from Delhi Police told The Hindu that the Ministry of Home Affairs had instructed city police as early as late 2024 to begin verification drives targeting Bangladeshi and Rohingya migrants. Between November 15, 2024, and April 20, 2025, about 220 undocumented migrants and 30 overstayers were identified, taken by train and road to eastern states, and deported via land borders through the FRRO.

However, after the Pahalgam attack, the process intensified. “Over the last one month, around 3–4 special flights went from Hindon air base to Agartala,” a senior officer said. In total, about 700 individuals have been deported from Delhi over the past six months, he added.

Initially, Deputy Commissioners of Police (DCPs) from all 15 districts were tasked with identifying undocumented Bangladeshi and Rohingya migrants. A first battalion of Delhi Police, along with FRRO officials, would accompany detainees via rail and road to West Bengal, from where the BSF completed the deportation process, according to a government source cited by The Hindu.

4. Gujarat: Over 1,000 detained in state’s largest crackdown, hundreds airlifted and pushed back across border

On April 26, Gujarat Police executed what officials described as the state’s largest-ever operation targeting undocumented migrants, detaining 1,024 suspected Bangladeshi nationals, 890 in Ahmedabad and 134 in Surat, amid allegations of fake documents and criminal activity, as per Deccan Herald. The state Home Minister hailed the operation as a “historic victory,” warning that those harbouring such individuals would face strict action, and confirming plans to swiftly deport the detainees, as per the report of Hindustan Times.

Just over a week later, on May 4, two Air India flights carried some 300 of the detained migrants, including around 200 women and children, to Agartala in Tripura. From there, they were “pushed back” across the land border into Bangladesh, bypassing lengthy legal deportation procedures, as per the HT report.

These actions followed a directive from the Ministry of Home Affairs after the Pahalgam terror attack, streamlining mass deportations with rapid airlifts and border pushbacks, according to Times of India report. Authorities have flagged concerns about detainees’ alleged links to drug and human trafficking ring, and even extremist sleeper cells, as justification for the sweeping operation, as per the New Indian Express.

The Gujarat operation, which involved specialized units from Ahmedabad Crime Branch, SOG, EOW, and local police divisions, also uncovered widespread use of forged IDs sourced from West Bengal, a network that is now under investigation as per the Indian Express report.

These developments underscore a troubling trend: a coordinated and expedient deportation campaign that circumvents due process, with authorities opting for air-bridge removals and cross-border pushbacks in lieu of formal court procedures.

5. Rajasthan: 1,000 marked for deportation as Indian migrant workers from Bengal detained for “Speaking Bengali”

On May 14, 2025, Rajasthan’s Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Jogaram Patel announced that around 1,000 suspected Bangladeshi nationals had been identified across the state. Speaking in Jaipur, he confirmed that the first group of 148 detainees had been moved to Jodhpur and then flown to Kolkata, from where they would be deported to Bangladesh. According to The Hindu, most of these individuals were originally detained in Sikar district, and the Village Development Officers’ Training Centre in Jodhpur had been temporarily converted into a holding facility for the deportation process.

As per the report, Patel further stated that the state would continue similar operations in the coming days to facilitate further removals.

However, the state’s aggressive crackdown also resulted in wrongful detentions. On May 13, Rajasthan Police released 13 migrant workers, including children and two families from Cooch Behar, West Bengal, who had been held for nine days on suspicion of being Bangladeshi infiltrators, solely because they spoke Bengali. The group had been picked up by personnel from the Patan Police Station in Sikar district, and were detained in a guest house under police watch, despite being Indian citizens.

According to The Telegraph, their release came only after sustained communication from West Bengal government officials, who intervened when alerted by concerned families and local leaders. Samirul Islam, a TMC Rajya Sabha MP and head of the Bengal government’s migrant worker welfare board, confirmed that state officials had been in touch with their counterparts in Rajasthan to secure the workers’ release. A senior Cooch Behar official reportedly called Rajasthan Police directly, following which the detainees were let go.

Obaydul Khandakar, a resident of Purba Jaigir Balabari village in Cooch Behar’s Dinhata-II block, who had been detained along with his wife Beauty Bibi, told the newspaper: “Despite being Indian citizens, we were detained for nine days just because we spoke Bengali.” The families had been working at a brick kiln near Sikar and returned there after their release. Khandakar said he planned to settle his dues and was now uncertain about returning to Rajasthan for work, shaken by the experience.

6. Tripura: Over 2,800 arrested for illegal entry since 2022 amid ongoing crackdown

On June 9, the Government Railway Police (GRP) in Tripura arrested one Bangladeshi national and one Indian tout during separate operations at Agartala railway station, according to a report by EastMojo. In the first incident, Pranajit Ray (35), a resident of Sylhet district in Bangladesh, was intercepted during a joint operation conducted by the GRP, Railway Protection Force (RPF), Border Security Force (BSF), and other agencies. Police said he had illegally crossed the border and was planning to travel to Kolkata. “We seized some documents and Indian currency. We are examining these,” an officer told the outlet.

In a separate case, an Indian trafficker from Chanipur in West Tripura district was also arrested as part of a similar joint operation.

The arrests come amid a growing number of detentions in the state. Between January 1 and February 28, 2024, a total of 816 Bangladeshi nationals, 79 Rohingya, and two Nigerians were arrested in Tripura, according to the Tripura Police’s own data cited by EastMojo.

Additionally, Chief Minister Dr. Manik Saha, who also holds the Home portfolio, recently informed the Assembly that 2,815 Bangladeshi nationals were arrested for illegally entering Tripura between 2022 and October 31, 2024. Out of these, 1,746 were “pushed back” across the border, while 1,069 remained either in jail, temporary detention centres, shelter homes, or out on bail, as per a report by The Indian Express.

7. Maharashtra: Four alleged Bangladeshi nationals held in Pune following military intelligence tip-off

In Maharashtra, four suspected Bangladeshi nationals were detained from a labour camp in Pune’s Khondwa area on June 13 in a joint operation conducted by the police and Military Intelligence, according to a report by The Hindu. The arrests were made following a tip-off from the Southern Command of Military Intelligence, which led authorities to intercept the individuals as they were allegedly attempting to flee the area.

Upon preliminary verification, the four men were identified as Swapan Mandal, Mithun Kumar, Ranodhir Mandal, and Dilip Mondal, and were found to be citizens of Bangladesh. Defence sources cited in the report confirmed that the individuals will undergo joint interrogation by multiple agencies.

8. West Bengal: Seven alleged Bangladeshi nationals caught trying to return home after years in India

On Saturday, seven alleged Bangladeshi nationals, including three women, were apprehended by police in Nadia district of West Bengal while attempting to cross back into Bangladesh after reportedly spending four years working in various Indian cities, according to a report by Hindustan Times.

“These individuals had entered India illegally through the North 24 Parganas border around four years ago and have since worked in Mumbai, Delhi, and several cities in Gujarat,” said Somnath Jha, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Border), Ranaghat Divisionm as per the HT report. They were caught in the Hanskhali police station area, the same location where another Bangladeshi woman was arrested earlier last week. She had reportedly entered India in 2024 and also worked in Mumbai.

The arrested individuals are said to be from Khulna, Jessore, Cox’s Bazar, and Kushtia districts in Bangladesh. According to officials, the group was attempting to return to Bangladesh with the help of an agent who is currently absconding.

With these arrests, the total number of alleged Bangladeshi nationals detained in various districts of West Bengal since December 2023 has reached approximately 100, as per police estimates. The Border Security Force (BSF) and other agencies have stepped up surveillance along the Indo-Bangladesh border since 2024 in response to the ongoing political unrest in Bangladesh.

State Pushback: When governments step in to stop unlawful deportations

While the Union government’s crackdown on undocumented migrants has unfolded across states with unprecedented coordination and speed, a few state governments have pushed back, not against migrants, but against what they allege are unlawful deportations of Indian citizens. In rare but telling instances, state authorities have intervened to halt or reverse deportations, particularly where those detained turned out to be bona fide Indian nationals. Most notably, the West Bengal government has led efforts to trace, verify, and bring back its residents who were mistakenly or illegally pushed into Bangladesh, raising urgent questions about due process, documentation, and the risks of communal or linguistic profiling in the ongoing campaign.

1. West Bengal Government brings back seven men wrongly deported to Bangladesh

In a striking instance of state-level intervention against what is being called unlawful deportation, the West Bengal government has successfully facilitated the return of at least seven Indian citizens who were allegedly picked up by Maharashtra Police during anti-immigration drives and pushed across the Bangladesh border, despite holding valid Indian documents.

The men, most of whom are residents of Murshidabad district, were working as daily wage labourers or masons in Mumbai and Thane. They were detained between June 9 and 11, and within days, without due legal process, transported across the border and abandoned in Bangladesh, according to The Indian Express.

One of the deportees, 36-year-old Mehbub Sheikh, who worked as a mason in Thane, was detained on June 11 and pushed into Bangladesh from a BSF camp in Siliguri by the early hours of June 14, despite his family and local police submitting documentation, including Aadhaar, voter ID, and land records, to prove his Indian citizenship. Another youth, Shamim Khan, also from Murshidabad, was picked up around the same time and met the same fate.

Following urgent appeals from families and local authorities, the West Bengal Migrant Workers’ Welfare Board, under instructions from Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, intervened. The Board’s chairman and TMC Rajya Sabha MP Samirul Islam told The Indian Express that the state government had taken the matter up directly with the Union government and the BSF. “Our government coordinated with central agencies and ensured five individuals were brought back by Sunday, and two more by Monday. We are continuing efforts to identify if others from Bengal have also been wrongfully deported,” he said.

According to a statement by Murshidabad SP Kumar Sunny Raj, upon receiving alerts from families, district police initiated local verification and coordinated with the BSF. Once the individuals’ Indian nationality was confirmed through supporting documents, the BSF held a flag meeting with Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB) and repatriated the youths. “They were handed over to Raiganj police station by the BSF and will be taken back to their respective villages,” added SP Md Sana Akhtar of Uttar Dinajpur as per the report.

The deported men include Mehbub Sheikh (Bhagwangola), Shamim Khan (Hariharpara), Minarul Sheikh (Beldanga), Nazimuddin Mondal (Hariharpara), and Mostafa Kamal Sheikh (Monteswar, Purba Bardhaman). Additionally, Fazer Sheikh and his wife Taslima from Bagda in North 24 Parganas were also returned. All were among the over 130 people transported by BSF aircraft from Pune to Agartala, and then dropped off at the border with minimal belongings, a packet of food, and 300 Bangladeshi Taka, according to multiple returnees.

Speaking to The Hindu, Nazimuddin Mondal, 34, recalled: “We were herded like cattle. At 3 am, the BSF jawans drove us toward the border, told us not to return. We walked into complete darkness.” After being chased away by Bangladeshi locals and beaten by BGB personnel, the group wandered for hours in paddy fields with mud up to their knees, before the BSF called them back the following evening and took them to Kokrajhar.

Nazimuddin’s brother Musarraf Mondal said the family had frantically submitted documentation to both local police in Murshidabad and the authorities in Mumbai, but were ignored. “Only after my brother managed to call from Bangladesh did, we know what had happened,” he said.

According to Samirul Islam, this is not an isolated event. “There is growing concern that Bengali-speaking Indian citizens, especially migrant workers, are being wrongly profiled and deported in BJP-ruled states like Maharashtra,” he told The Telegraph. “This is illegal, and our Chief Minister has written to the Centre about this.”

The return of these individuals was made possible through urgent coordination between state police, BSF, and BGB, as confirmed by Mekhliganj Police Station OC Mani Bhusan Sarkar, who received prior alerts from Murshidabad and Bardhaman police about missing residents. After verifying identities, a flag meeting at the Mekhliganj border enabled their return on Sunday afternoon.

As The Hindu reports, these cases come amid a wider trend of the Indian government “pushing back” undocumented migrants across the Bangladesh border, especially following Operation Sindoor, launched in the wake of the Pahalgam terror attack in April. The Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB) has officially raised objections, stating such pushbacks violate diplomatic protocols.

For the seven men from Bengal, the ordeal has left lasting scars. “We were taken from one police station to another in Mumbai. We had no phones, no belongings. No one listened to us,” said Nazimuddin, still shaken after returning to his village in Taratipur, Murshidabad. “Only the state government listened.”

Here is a detailed and paraphrased version of the UP detention and Bengal police intervention story, rewritten with improved flow and source attribution:

2. West Bengal police intervene to secure release of six detainees from UP, wrongly suspected as Bangladeshis

In yet another instance that underscores growing concerns around the profiling of Bengali-speaking migrant workers, six residents of West Bengal, including two drivers, were detained by the Uttar Pradesh Police on May 5 in Deoria district, allegedly on suspicion of being Bangladeshi nationals. The detainees, five from Beldanga in Murshidabad and one from Krishnaganj in Nadia, were travelling by bus when they were stopped and taken to Lar police station, according to a report in The Telegraph.

The situation was resolved only after swift intervention by Murshidabad Superintendent of Police Kumar Sunny Raj, who contacted senior UP officials and facilitated the release of the group. A police officer in Bengal, speaking to the media, confirmed that local authorities had been alerted to the detentions around noon. “As soon as we were informed, our SP reached out to his counterparts in Uttar Pradesh. The issue was resolved the same day,” the officer stated.

Family members of the detainees said they were advised to keep their local police stations informed while travelling outside the state, especially in light of recent incidents of wrongful detention. “We had notified the Beldanga Inspector-in-Charge as a precaution. The prompt response of our local police ensured the group was not subjected to further harassment,” said Din Muhammad, a relative of one of the men, while speaking to The Telegraph.

Samirul Islam, Trinamool MP and chairman of the West Bengal Migrant Workers’ Welfare Board, condemned the incident, calling it part of a worrying trend of systemic suspicion and profiling of Bengali-speaking Indians in BJP-ruled states. “This has to stop. Speaking Bengali does not make someone a Bangladeshi,” Islam said. He further noted that despite the six men producing valid photo ID cards, they were still detained, an act he described as “deeply discriminatory.” He added that Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee had already written to the Centre raising concern about the growing frequency of such incidents.

Police confirmed that the group was released by the evening of May 5 and arrangements were made for them to return to their homes in Bengal the following day. (Detailed report may be read here.)

When the Courts Intervene: Stays and interim protection

Amid a wave of detentions and swift deportations, many allegedly carried out without due process, constitutional courts across India have intervened to halt or question such actions. In several instances, the Supreme Court and High Courts have granted interim protection or stay orders, preventing the deportation of individuals flagged as “illegal migrants” or declared foreigners under the Foreigners Act. These judicial interventions have not only delayed state action but have, in some cases, forced authorities to re-examine the legality and fairness of their deportation processes.

1. Supreme Court grants interim protection to woman declared ‘foreigner’ amid concerns over opaque deportation processes in Assam

Amid growing judicial scrutiny of arbitrary deportation practices in Assam, the Supreme Court on June 24, 2025, granted interim protection from deportation to Jaynab Bibi, a woman declared a foreigner by a Foreigners Tribunal under Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946. The Tribunal’s two-page 2017 order had summarily dismissed her extensive documentary evidence, including the 1951 NRC, multiple electoral rolls, land records, and local certificates, on grounds of minor inconsistencies in names and testimonies. The Gauhati High Court upheld this finding in February 2025 and revoked her interim protection, but the Supreme Court has now stayed all coercive steps against her, including deportation, while issuing notice in her special leave petition. The case is next listed for August 25.

Represented by Advocates Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi and Akanksha Rai, Jaynab’s petition relies heavily on the Supreme Court’s own observations in Mohd. Rahim Ali v. State of Assam (July 2024), where the Court cautioned against opaque and suspicion-based declarations under the Foreigners Act. Jaynab, who claims Indian citizenship by birth and residence in Nagaon district, contends that her identity was rejected without due process. The Court’s intervention, though interim, sends a strong signal against mechanical adjudications and underscores the central role of constitutional safeguards in proceedings that could result in loss of nationality and expulsion. (Detailed report may be read here.)

2. Bombay High Court grants bail over custodial rights violation

In a significant judicial intervention affirming procedural safeguards even in cases involving alleged undocumented immigrants, the Bombay High Court on May 7, 2025, granted bail to 34-year-old Sabnam Suleman Ansari, accused of entering India illegally, after finding that she was produced before a magistrate well beyond the constitutionally permitted 24-hour window following her arrest. Justice Milind Jadhav, while granting her bail on a surety of ₹5,000, observed that Ansari was arrested on January 28 at 12:30 PM and produced only on January 29 at 4:30 PM. The delay, the judge ruled, constituted a prima facie breach of her fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. According to the order, “It is the duty of the Bail Court to step in,” when such violations are apparent.

The prosecution alleged Ansari had entered India through an unauthorised route from Bangladesh and lacked valid travel documents. However, Justice Jadhav rejected the State’s reliance on an earlier division bench ruling in Karan Ratan Rokade v. State of Maharashtra, distinguishing the facts and affirming the Supreme Court’s position in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, which emphasized the judiciary’s obligation to grant bail in cases of illegal detention. The Court also noted the indifference of police authorities toward elementary but statutory safeguards under Section 50 of the CrPC and Section 58 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, underscoring that constitutional protections remain non-negotiable, even in immigration-related prosecutions.

3. Bombay High Court intervenes in detention of Indian teen following father’s deportation

In another crucial instance of judicial scrutiny over policing under the Foreigners Act, the Bombay High Court on June 3, 2025, ordered the immediate release of 18-year-old Ruksar Dadamiya Khan, who had been detained by Mumbai’s Mankhurd police following her father’s deportation to Bangladesh on allegations of illegal migration. Despite being born in India and possessing valid Indian documents, Ruksar was held in custody without any independent proceedings initiated against her. A vacation bench comprising Justices Dr. Neela Gokhale and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla passed the order while hearing a habeas corpus petition filed on behalf of Ruksar and her two younger siblings, aged 16 and 8, seeking protection from coercive state action and possible deportation.

According to the petition, while the younger siblings were released to their mother soon after it was filed, Ruksar remained confined at the Nirbhaya Cell in Mankhurd, prompting the Court’s urgent intervention. The bench observed that her continued detention was unwarranted and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees personal liberty, especially when she was not the subject of any conclusive or independent inquiry under the Foreigners Act, 1946. The ruling serves as a reminder that procedural fairness cannot be dispensed with, particularly in cases involving minors or Indian-born individuals whose rights risk being subsumed by broad and indiscriminate enforcement drives.

4. Gauhati High Court orders immediate release of bail-compliant man detained as ‘Foreigner’

In a forceful assertion of constitutional liberty, the Gauhati High Court on June 16, 2025, ordered the immediate release of Hachinur @ Hasinur, a resident of Goalpara, who had been unlawfully detained by the Assam Border Police despite being out on High Court–granted bail since 2021. The Court declared his detention “expressly illegal,” noting that no bail cancellation had been obtained and the Foreigners Tribunal’s declaration against him remained sub judice. Rejecting the State’s plea for adjournment due to lack of instructions, the bench of Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Malasri Nandi stated, “Illegal detention cannot be allowed even for a minute,” and reminded the State that liberty cannot wait for bureaucratic coordination. The order came in response to a habeas corpus petition filed by the detainee’s mother, Mozida Begum, which documented the detainee’s weekly police reporting and absence of any new judicial order justifying re-arrest.

The Court had earlier stayed any deportation and verified that Hachinur was held at the Kokrajhar Holding Centre. His arrest on May 25, 2025, triggered widespread concern, especially as he had regularly reported to Goalpara Police Station per the conditions of his 2021 bail, granted under the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 guidelines. During the hearing, Advocate A.R. Sikdar emphasised that no fresh legal proceedings had been initiated, and the arrest was both unconstitutional and unjustified. The Court agreed, holding that the State should have sought a judicial order if it believed fresh grounds existed. “Once there is bail, if they do not give you instructions, it is their lookout,” Justice Surana said. With that, the Court directed immediate release, reinforcing that executive action cannot override existing judicial protections or suspend liberty at will. (Detailed report may be read here.)

Related:

Another Pushback Halted: SC stays deportation of woman declared foreigner, issues notice on challenge to Gauhati HC order

After incorrect detention claim, Gauhati HC was informed that Doyjan Bibi was handed over to BSF

Gauhati HC again grants visitation in Torap Ali petition challenging re-detention of uncle as affidavit opposing claims of regular police reporting is filed

“Bail once granted can’t be ignored”: Gauhati HC seeks legal basis for re-detentions of COVID-era released detainees

The post Deported in Silence: India’s mass expulsions of alleged Bangladeshis without due process appeared first on SabrangIndia.

These events, including the rather brazen assertion by Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma of a “push-back” policy for undocumented immigrants from Bangladesh and Myanmar (including Rohingyas), have brought the issue of deportation and refugee rights into sharp focus. A report by the Indian Express stated that approximately 2,000 individuals have been forcibly returned under “Operation Sindhoor.” People from states like Gujarat, Rajasthan and Maharashtra have been reportedly detained and taken to Bangladesh border.

A top officer of the Bangladesh Army has termed the forcible expulsion or so called “push-back” policy unacceptable. A woman—Shona Bhanu— was pushed into Bangladesh at gun point. She has lived in Assam all her life.

As in all matters related to citizenship, Assam and its people, especially the marginalised, have faced the brunt. Citizens for Justice and Peace (cjp.org,in)  with its vibrant on ground team in the state, has been closely involved in not just monitoring and documenting this humanitarian tragedy but also intervened with para legal aid, counselling and actual legal interventions. See here and here. Comprehensive memorandums to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) may be read here and here.

Much of the recent action (s) of the authorities, in states ruled, interestingly by the far right Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), have been experienced as executive overreach, with no public disclosures on procedures and documents to legally and constitutionally justify the process. Sudden demolitions of entire bastis, the forcible detention of families, backed by over-hyped and exaggerated statements on purging the country of illegal immigrants have even put the judiciary on the defensive. That these actions have been launched in a coordinated manner after the Pahalgam terror attack (April 22) and the military face-off between India-Pakistan (May 7-10, 2025), squarely plays into public sentiment that remains silent or “allows” such unlawful actions.

Given that India remains a constitutional republic, bound to a process of law, procedure and even international obligations, it is crucial to ask, what is the law and procedure, on ‘deportation’ and how important it is that this be rendered in the public consciousness and meticulously followed?

In this extensive legal resource (in two parts) CJP’s legal team examines this sticklish question.

A common, yet simplistic, view is that individuals who are not Indian citizens and have entered India illegally should be sent back. This perspective often overlooks the complex legal and humanitarian dimensions involved. This document aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the legal framework governing deportation in India. It will explore:

1. The rights of refugees and illegal migrants under the Indian Constitution.
2. How various court judgments have upheld these fundamental rights, including the right to due process, thereby shaping the law of the land?

This analysis will primarily focus on the legal aspects, with a subsequent part that deals with the broader societal and humanitarian considerations for treating refugees with not just greater compassion but adherence to constitutional jurisprudence and international obligations.

1. Legal Regime—Immigration and deportation in India

The management of immigration and the deportation of foreign nationals is a complex and often contentious domain within Indian law and policy. The “push-back” strategy, characterised by the forcible return of individuals without adherence to established legal procedures, starkly contrasts with the human rights guarantees enshrined in the Indian Constitution and affirmed by its judiciary. The recent enactment of The Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 (hereinafter “the 2025 Act”), which consolidates and replaces previous legislation, further shapes this landscape, necessitating a thorough examination of its provisions and implications.

2.1.          The legislative framework (Foreigners Act, 1946—Pre-2025 Act)

Prior to the 2025 Act, the deportation process in India was primarily governed by the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964.

• Definition of a “Foreigner”: Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, defined a “foreigner” as a person who is not a citizen of India.
• Foreigners Tribunals: Established under the 1964 Order, these tribunals were empowered to determine if an individual was a foreigner.
• Expulsion: Once declared a foreigner, an individual was liable for expulsion from Indian territory under Section 3(2)(c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
• Saving Provision: The Foreigners Act, 1946 was repealed by the 2025 Act, but a saving provision ensured that rules made under the 1946 Act continue to be valid.

2.2.          Role of the Citizenship Act, 1955, and Special Provisions (Assam-Specific)

The Citizenship Act, 1955, contains crucial provisions, particularly relevant in the context of Assam:

• Section 6A (Assam Accord): This section provides special provisions for persons of Indian origin who entered Assam between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971. If declared foreigners, they may still be permitted to register for citizenship after a 10-year waiting period from the date of detection. During this period, they cannot vote but enjoy other citizenship rights. Entrants post-March 25, 1971, if found to be foreigners, are liable for expulsion.
• Section 9 (Burden of Proof): This section places the burden of proving Indian citizenship on the individual when questioned by authorities, rather than the state having to prove they are not a citizen.
• Referral to Tribunals (Assam): For individuals in Assam or those covered under special notifications, cases with inadequate documentation or unclear citizenship are referred to Foreigners Tribunals. This is mandated by the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003, and Paragraph 2 of the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964.

2.3.       The Passports Act, 1967

The Passports Act, 1967, while not directly providing for deportation, plays a significant role in the identification and apprehension of individuals liable for deportation:

• Powers of Passport Authorities (Sections 6 & 10): Authorities can refuse, impound, or revoke passports if the applicant is not an Indian citizen, or if issuance is contrary to public interest, national security, or foreign relations.
• Penalties (Section 12): Prescribes penalties for obtaining or using passports through false information or by foreigners masquerading as Indian citizens.
• Arrest Powers (Sections 13 & 14): Law enforcement can arrest individuals with fraudulent passports or without valid documentation, often a preliminary step towards deportation.
• Complementary Legislation: The Passports Act, 1967, operates alongside the Foreigners Act, 1946 (now repealed), and the Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939(also repealed by the 2025 Act).

Foreigners staying illegally in India risk violating provisions of both the (now-repealed) Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Passports Act, 1967, potentially leading to imprisonment of up to 5 years. The question of what happens after such a foreigner is released from jail often involves arbitrary administrative discretion.

2.4.         Procedure for deportation

Deportation in India, though grounded in statutory powers, was largely operationalised through internal administrative mechanisms and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) by state authorities (See here, here and here) following directions from the Centre.

Typical deportation process:

• Identification/Completion of Sentence: A foreign national is declared a foreigner or completes a prison term for violating applicable laws.
• Notification: Jail authorities notify relevant police officials (e.g., Superintendent of Police) about the impending release.
• Custody and Order:
  • If the government decides on deportation, a formal order is issued.
  • Upon release, the individual is taken into police custody and served with the deportation order.
• Physical Removal: Arrangements are made for their removal from the country, often under police escort. The serving officer reports the execution of the order back to the government.
• Consular notification (Vienna Convention):
  • As per Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Indian authorities must inform the consular representatives of the foreign national’s country about their arrest or detention.
  • Indian practice (MEA Office Memorandum No. T.4415/1/91 (CPO/CIR/9)) requires:
    • Asking the arrested foreign national if they wish their consulate to be informed.
    • Immediately notifying the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).
    • Providing detailed particulars (name, nationality, passport details, offence, arrest details, location) to Joint Secretaries at MEA and MHA, and state authorities.
    • Deportation for minor violations: In cases of brief overstays or delayed registration, prosecution might be withdrawn with court approval, and the individual directly deported under delegated powers of Section 3(2)(c) of the (now-repealed) Foreigners Act. A record is submitted to the MEA.

2.5.          The Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025: A New Consolidated Regime

The Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, received Presidential assent. It aims to consolidate and modernise India’s immigration laws by repealing four key statutes:

1. The Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920
2. The Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939
3. The Foreigners Act, 1946
4. The Immigration (Carriers’ Liability) Act, 2000

2.5.1.     Key Provisions of the 2025 Act

• Definition of “Foreigner” (Section 2(f)): A person who is not a citizen of India (consistent with the 1946 Act).
• Entry, Exit, and Registration:
  • Section 3: Mandates valid passports/travel documents for all entering/exiting India. Foreigners additionally require a valid visa, unless exempted.
  • Section 6: Requires foreigners to register with a designated Registration Officer upon arrival, subject to prescribed conditions.
  • Section 5: Provides for notification of designated immigration posts and establishes a Bureau of Immigration.
• Powers of Immigration Authorities:
  • Section 3: Immigration Officers can examine travel documents/visas and deny entry on grounds specified by the Central Government (national security, sovereignty, public order, public health, foreign relations).
  • Section 26: Police officers (not below Head Constable rank) can arrest without a warrant individuals suspected of contravening entry requirements or other Act provisions.

• Powers of the Central Government:
  • Section 7: Empowers the Central Government to issue orders/instructions to prohibit, regulate, or restrict entry, departure, or continued presence of any foreigner or class of foreigners. This can include directives on residence, movement restrictions, proof of identity, and reporting presence.

• Tracking and Monitoring:
  • Sections 10, 12, and 17: Impose reporting obligations on carriers, accommodation providers (hotels, etc.), educational institutions, and medical institutions treating foreign patients to furnish prescribed information to registration authorities.

• Penalties:
  • Section 18: Carriers liable for fines up to ₹50,000 for contravening Section 17. If a carrier brings an illegal foreigner, the fine can be ₹2-5 lakhs.
  • Section 21: Entering India without a valid passport/visa can attract imprisonment up to five years and a fine up to ₹500,000.
  • Section 22: Using forged documents can lead to imprisonment for two to seven years and fines from ₹100,000 to ₹1,000,000.
  • Section 23: Overstaying, violating visa conditions, or trespassing in restricted areas can result in imprisonment up to three years and a fine up to ₹300,000.

• Mechanisms for Identification, Detention, and Deportation:
  • Section 29: Authorizes the Central Government to order the removal of any foreigner from India if they have contravened the Act/orders or if there is an “adverse security report” against them. “Adverse security report” is not defined in the Act.
  • Government officers are granted reasonable powers to enforce removal.
  • Foreigners may be required to bear the cost of their removal and maintenance pending removal.
  • The Act does not detail pre-deportation detention facilities or conditions, suggesting these could be in rules framed under the Act meaning that they are left to executive discretion.
  • The term “illegal immigrant” is not explicitly defined, though actions constituting illegal entry/stay are penalised.

(Note: “illegal migrant” is defined in Section 2(1)(b) of The Citizenship Act, 1955 as a person entering the Country without valid documents or overstaying permitted time in country despite having entered with valid documents).

2.5.2.     Concerns Regarding the 2025 Act

While presented as a modernising step, the 2025 Act appears to consolidate and potentially amplify executive dominance:

• Vague grounds for removal (Section 29): The term “adverse security report” is undefined, allowing for potentially unfettered discretion without a clear, independent review mechanism within the Act.
• Absence of adequate appellate mechanism: No statutory appellate mechanism within the Act to challenge deportation orders, forcing individuals to approach constitutional courts.
• Silence on refugees/asylum seekers: The Act lacks explicit classifications or special provisions for refugees and asylum seekers.
• Expansive power of removal and use of force:
  • Section 29: Grants broad power for removal.
  • Section 27 (Use of Force):

• Subsection (1): Allows any authority to take steps and use force “as may, in its opinion, be reasonably necessary” for compliance or effective exercise of power.
• Subsection (2): Extends similar powers to police (Head Constable and above) to use force “as may, in his opinion, be reasonably necessary.” The subjective nature of “reasonably necessary” provides wide latitude.
• Subsection (3): Grants a “right of access to any land or other property whatsoever,” potentially facilitating removals.
• These provisions could legitimize forcible “push-back” operations with limited procedural review.

• Delegation and immunity:
  • Section 28 (Delegation of Powers): Allows the Central Government to delegate its powers widely (to subordinate officers/authorities, State Governments, or their subordinates). This could lead to decentralized and less scrutinized implementation of removal directives, including “push-backs.”
  • Section 32 (Protection of action taken in good faith): Protects individuals from legal proceedings for actions “done, or intended to be done in good faith” under the Act. In the context of vague terms and broad force powers, this may shield authorities in “push-back” operations.

• Rule-making power and continuity of previous regime:
  • Section 30 (Power to make rules): Grants extensive rule-making power to the Central Government. Significant aspects of the deportation process (detention, removal specifics, and safeguards) will be determined by executive rule-making rather than direct legislative scrutiny.

Overall Concern: The 2025 Act solidifies executive dominance. Vague removal grounds, sanctioned use of force based on officer opinion, wide delegation, and protective clauses create a framework where policies like “push-back” can be implemented with a veneer of legality. The Act’s silence on specific protections for refugees means these broad powers can apply to vulnerable individuals without distinction, potentially lacking robust procedural safeguards and independent oversight.

2.6.          The “Push-Back” Policy: Assam’s approach to undocumented citizens/immigration

Against this new legal backdrop, the Assam Chief Minister has publicly announced the state’s adoption of a “push-back” policy for undocumented immigrants, primarily targeting individuals from Bangladesh and Myanmar (including Rohingyas). This policy is framed as an expedient alternative to established legal deportation procedures, citing national security.

• Reported Incidents: Forcible return of Bengali-speaking Muslims and Rohingyas, sometimes from detention centres, with individuals allegedly stranded at the “zero line” if refused entry by neighbouring countries.

• Alignment with MHA Directives: This state-level policy appears to resonate with Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) directives aimed at expediting deportation. The MHA has instructed states to:

• Verify credentials of suspected illegal immigrants within a 30-day deadline, failing which deportation is to proceed.
• Establish special district-level task forces for detection, identification, and deportation.
• Risks of MHA’s 30-Day Deadline: High risk of wrongful deportations, as nationality verification is often complex and cannot realistically be completed in such a short timeframe, especially for vulnerable individuals. This could lead to violations of the principle of non-refoulement if asylum seekers are erroneously deported.

• Legal Ambiguity: The “push-back” policy operates in a legally ambiguous, if not outright unlawful, space. It flouts the procedural protections required by the Constitution and affirmed by the Courts. What are these protections?

3.       The Judicial Bulwark – Constitutional Rights and Deportation Jurisprudence

While legislation grants the state powers to regulate foreigners, the Indian judiciary has consistently intervened to ensure these powers are exercised in conformity with constitutional principles.

3.1.          Constitutional Protections for Non-Citizens

The Constitution of India extends certain fundamental rights to all persons within its territory, not just citizens.

• Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty): “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
  • The Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India established that “life” means the right to live with human dignity, and “personal liberty” has been broadly interpreted.
  • Critically, the “procedure established by law” must be just, fair, and reasonable. This is fundamental to any deportation process.

• Article 14 (Equality before the Law): “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”
  • This acts as a bulwark against arbitrary state action. Any differential treatment for deportation must be based on an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the objective.

Policies like “push-backs,” which bypass due process, are prima facie incompatible with Article 21. If such policies disproportionately target specific ethnic or national groups without a non-discriminatory legal basis, they could also be challenged under Article 14.

3.2.          Judgements on Deportation and Rights of Foreigners

A nuanced judicial landscape has emerged regarding the treatment of foreign nationals.

3.2.1.     Right to Life and Liberty (Article 21)

The Supreme Court in Louis De Raedt & Ors vs Union Of India And Ors, 1991 (3) SCC 554 firmly stated that a foreigner’s fundamental right is confined to Article 21 for life and liberty. It “does not include the right to reside and settle in this country, as mentioned in Article 19(1) (e), which is applicable only to the citizens of this country.”

3.2.2.     State’s Power to Expel

The Supreme Court, in Louis De Raedt, referencing an earlier Constitution Bench decision, held that “the power of the Government in India to expel foreigners is absolute and unlimited and there is no provision in the Constitution fettering this discretion.” This power is typically exercised under the Foreigners Act, 1946 (now the 2025 Act).

3.2.3.     Principle of Non-Refoulement

This international law principle prohibits a state from returning a refugee to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened.

Although India is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, courts have drawn inspiration from international instruments like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (to which India is a party) to interpret domestic fundamental rights.

In Ktaer Abbas Habib Al Qutaifi And Anr. vs Union Of India  (Gujarat High Court),  (1998) SCC OnLine Guj 304, concerning Iraqi refugees, the Court declared that the principle of non-refoulement “is encompassed in Article 21 of the Constitution, so long as the presence of refugee is not prejudicial to the law and order and security of India.” It noted India’s UN membership and Article 51(c) of the Constitution (fostering respect for international law). The Court directed authorities to release the detained foreigners and decide on their handover to the UNHCR rather than deporting them to Iraq.

In Nandita Haksar v State of Manipur (Manipur High Court), (2021) SCC OnLine Mani 176,
dealing with Myanmarese asylum seekers, the Court held that Article 21 “would indubitably encompass the right of non-refoulement, albeit subject to the condition that the presence of such asylum seeker or refugee is not prejudicial or adverse to the security of this country.” It distinguished ‘migrants’ from ‘asylum seekers’ who fled imminent threats and directed facilitation of their travel to the UNHCR in New Delhi.

In a recent case being heard by the Bombay High Court, a vacation bench of justices Neela Gokhale and Firdosh P Pooniwalla ordered the Mumbai police to release immediate an 18-year old daughter of a Bangladeshi national from detention. Her father, reportedly a Bangladeshi national was initially detained by the Mankhurd police in Mumbai ‘for an inquiry regarding his citizenship and was later deported to the neighbouring country.The court was hearing a petition filed by the 18-year-old girl and her two younger siblings aged 16 and 8 years, who contended that they were born in India and had all requisite documents to prove their Indian citizenship. According to their petition, their father, Dadamiya Khan, had been residing in India for over 37 years. He had married an Indian woman named Mariyam Khan and was working as a cab driver. While all three children were detained by Mankhurd police following a special drive to identify foreign nationals staying illegally in India, the two younger siblings were handed over to their mother after they filed the Habeas Corpus petition.

3.2.4.     Supreme Court on Rohingya Deportation

In Mohammad Salimullah vs Union Of India, (2021) 19 SCC 191, the Supreme Court, while acknowledging Articles 14 and 21 are available to non-citizens, denied interim relief against deportation for Rohingya refugees. It cited “threat to internal security of the country” and “agents and touts providing a safe passage into India for illegal immigrants.” However, even in this context, the Court stipulated that deportation must follow the “procedure prescribed for such deportation.”

3.2.5.     Natural Justice and Right to be Heard

Louis De Raedt: The Supreme Court noted that while there’s no hard and fast rule, an opportunity to present one’s case is relevant.

In State Of Arunachal Pradesh vs Khudiram Chakma, 1994 (1) SCC (SUPP) 615, involving the proposed shifting of Chakmas, multiple notices and representations over time were deemed sufficient opportunity for a hearing. Interestingly, despite upholding state power, the Court allowed the Chief Minister to afford a post-decisional hearing on humanitarian grounds.

3.2.6.     State’s Duty to Protect

In National Human Rights Commission vs State Of Arunachal Pradesh & Anr, (1996) 1 SCC 742, the Supreme Court directed the state government to protect the life and liberty of Chakma refugees facing threats and ‘quit notices’ from organised groups. This affirmed the state’s constitutional and statutory obligation to safeguard all human beings, citizens or otherwise.

3.2.7.     Judicial Essence

While the Indian judiciary acknowledges the executive’s broad power to regulate foreigners and deport illegal entrants, it has consistently emphasized that any such deportation must follow the prescribed procedure, aligning with the principles of natural justice and constitutional safeguards under Article 21.

4.       Conclusion

In the case of Maja Daruwala v. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court passed an order on January 30, 2025, and posed some questions to respondents (Centre and West Bengal) regarding what their stance was on deportation of illegal migrants. The Court expressed a confusion and said as follows:

“The pivotal issue that falls for our consideration is that if an illegal immigrant from Bangladesh after being apprehended and proceeded under Section 14A(b) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 is convicted and sentenced to undergo a particular term of imprisonment then after he completes his term of sentence should be immediately repatriated/deported to his own country or should he be kept for an indefinite period in the Correctional Homes in India.

The only confusion in our mind is that once an illegal immigrant is put to trial and is held guilty then what is the requirement for further verification of his nationality at the end of the Ministry of External Affairs.”

On May 16, 2025, the two-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan transferred the issues in this case to be heard along with another case— Jaffar Ullah & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors—dealt by a larger bench.

The latest order—in Jaffar Ullah— was the Supreme Court refusing to interfere in deportation until it finally hears the case which it is set to hear on July 31, 2025. This was done after the Union drew the Court’s attention to the Mohammad Salimullah order which mandated that government follow the procedure before deportation.

One clear conclusion from the above happening is that a specific well thought out law on deportation does not exist. All we have are some memorandums and executive decided processes. The Supreme Court’s expression of confusion is a testament to that.

This means that the current policy being followed, involving pushback, does not take into account things like lack of documentation etc. especially in poor Bengali speaking communities. And in the absence of a set law, the pushbacks reported are happening in a legally dubious manner putting vulnerable people including those that fled persecution at risk.

In essence, while the legislative framework, particularly the new 2025 Act, appears to strengthen the executive’s hand in managing immigration and effecting deportations, this power is not unfettered. It is limited by constitutional safeguards and a body of judicial precedent that insists on procedural fairness, non-arbitrariness, and respect for human dignity. The ongoing challenge lies in ensuring that administrative practices and the implementation of laws like The Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, rigorously adhere to these judicially reinforced standards.

Whether the Supreme Court will herald a new era in human rights law by mandating better procedures for deportation or not is a question that will be answered after July 31. The second part of this explainer will explore the broader humanitarian and societal arguments for why refugees should be treated with greater compassion and why upholding such principles is vital for India as a civilization.

(The author is part of the legal research team of the organisation)

Related:

From Detention to Deportation: The mass deportations and detention crisis at Assam’s Matia centre

Restoring Citizenship, Rebuilding Lives: CJP continues its journey in Assam

Declared Foreigner, buried Indian: The tragic death of Abdul Matleb in Assam’s detention camp

A jumla or a concrete step? Assam CM’s announcement on Koch Rajbongshi cases raises more questions than answers

SC: Only 10 deported, 33 of 63 contest foreigner status from the Matia Transit Camp, Assam

The post Does India have a lawfully established procedure on ‘deportation’, or are actions governed by Executive secrecy and overreach? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Modi 2.0 government has had two sessions in the Parliament and has been in power for 6 months. In this short stint so far, the ruling government’s actions have spread continued discontent among its populace. First major step was the effectual revocation of Article 370 of Indian Constitution and reorganisation of the state of Jammu and Kashmir and effecting a communication blockade in the Kashmir valley.

Secondly, the Citizenship Amendment Bill was introduced and passed by both houses of Parliament in December 2019, thus the bill has now become a law effective January 10, 2020. The law enables grant of citizenship to Hindus, Parsis, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists and Christians from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. The law categorically excludes Muslims from its purview and this has been seen as a divisive policy of the government. Before the passage of the bill, it was also introduced in the previous stint of the government, i.e. in 2016 but the same had lapsed in 2019 as Lok Sabha had dissolved due to end of its tenure.

It was expected that in their new tenure as well they will introduce the law and hence the parliamentary sessions of 2019 saw quite a few questions on illegal intrusions and deportations taken place on the Indian soil, some questions were trying to get an estimate of number of illegal immigrants in the country while some were trying to gauge whether this law was really necessary.
 

Number of illegal migrants

A common thread or piece of information that has been consistent throughout the year, is the answer on number of illegal migrants from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh. The government, rather the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has consistently maintained that there is no accurate data on data of number of illegal migrants in the country. Ideally an estimate can be made basis the number of cases filed under the Foreigners Act which is the statutory sanction for booking illegal migrants and making them undergo trial. However, the MHA has maintained that they have no data on this as such data has not been maintained.

Ideally for a government claiming that so many people have fled these 3  “Islamic” countries to India to find safe harbour from the religious persecutions in their home countries, they should have first gathered the data on number of such migrants actually present in the country, if they have managed to nab any. It appears therefore, that the law has been made for the benefit of an unspecified set of people, while the government is either unaware how many such people exist in the country or is hiding such figures from its citizenry.

The MHA however, did provide data on Afghan and Pakistani nationals belonging to religious minorities, living in India on long term basis. Per MHA, 41,331 Pak nationals and 4193 Afghan nationals belonging to religious minorities have been reported to be living in India on Long term basis as on December 31, 2018. This data however indicates people from these countries living in India on legal terms, probably on basis of  Long Term Visas (LTV).
 

Deportations from India

Before the six non-Muslim communities could seek refuge and citizenship in India, they have been deported over the years as per the law of the land. Since the data on the religious background of such deported individuals is not available, it is impossible to ascertain how many people of these communities have already been sent back and hence do not stand to benefit from the new law, now known as Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).

The Central Government is vested with powers to deport a foreign national illegally staying in the country under Section 3(2) (c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946.  These powers to identify and deport illegally staying Bangladeshi Nationals have also been delegated to the State Governments/Union Territory Administrations. Detection and deportation of such illegal immigrants is a continuous process. Details of such deportation orders issued by the State Governments/UT administrations are not centrally maintained.
 

Official data from MHA, as presented in Parliament in 2019:

Karnataka has registered 143 cases against illegal immigration and so far 114 persons staying in Karnataka have been deported.

The latest data on number of inmates in 6 detention camps in Assam is as of November 28 and stands at 970. This number does not indicate that these many people are illegal migrants, nor do they indicate that only these many people have been deemed to be illegal migrants in Assam. For now, there is no definite figure on this number even in the state of Assam. From Assam alone, 6 persons have been deported in 2019 and 227 have been deported (starting range not known) as on December 5, 2019

The Border Security Force (BSF) has been given the authority to detain people who are caught illegally crossing the border between India and Bangladesh and deport them back to Bangladesh. People who illegally enter India from Bangladesh are being arrested/intercepted by BSF/State/UT Police and after completion of legal action against them, are being deported to Bangladesh. The deported persons are handed over at the border to Bangladeshi officials who ensure that the repatriated persons are sent home.

As per MHA, BSF has deported 1,154 people till October 31, 2019 in that year alone. Cumulative data of last 5 years suggests that from 2015 to October 31, 2019, a total of 8,948 persons have been deported to Bangladesh, as a result of having been apprehended on the Indo-Bangladesh border.

While Bureau of Immigration’s data suggests that 1,731 foreigners/immigrants were deported to various countries in 2018, BSF data suggests that in 2018, 1,118 persons have been deported across the Bangladesh border. Which means that out of the total 1,731 deportations in 2018, 1,118 deportations have been made to Bangladesh alone. The Bureau of Immigration’s data remains consistent with data provided by Foreigners Regional Registration Officers (FRROs), while the office of FRRO also provided deportation data for 2016 which stands at 2,476 and for 2017 which stands at 2,272.

As per the Annual Report 2018-19 released by the Ministry of Home Affairs, in a span of 15 months from January 2018 to March 2019, a total of 1,982 foreigners were deported by the FRRO and out of these deported persons, 491 were from Bangladesh and the rest from African countries of Nigerai Somalia.
 

Citizenship granted

As per data provided by MHA, 391 Afghani and 1595 Pakistani migrants, have been granted Indian Citizenship between 2016 and 2018. In 2019, 40 Afghani and 712 Pakistani migrants, have been granted Indian Citizenship till 6th December 2019. A total of 927 Sikhs and Hindus (separate figures not known) from both Afghanistan and Pakistan have been granted citizenship since 2018.

As per data provided by MHA in July, 2019, it has specified that Collectors of 16 districts including three Districts of Jodhpur, Jaisalmer and Jaipur in the State of Rajasthan and Secretary (Home) of the seven states  including the state of Rajasthan would exercise powers of the Central Govt. to grant Indian citizenship by registration or naturalization to legal migrants belonging to six minority communities namely Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh. This was done as per powers conferred on the government under section 16 of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Section 16 of the Act is a provision for delegation of power by the Central Government to any officer or authority as it may deem necessary. But the government can only delegate a power that it possesses or has been conferred upon it as per the Act. The act, at that time did not have the provision of providing citizenship to migrants belonging to the 6 specified communities. Yet, Rajasthan government and District Collectors of Jodhpur, Jaisalmer and Jaipur granted citizenships to people from these six non-Muslim communities much before the Citizenship Amendment Bill was even introduced in the Parliament. The data provided is as follows:

In conclusion, one can infer that the government may not have or is perhaps unwilling to release the data on the number of possible beneficiaries of its new amendment to the Citizenship Act. The law can be said to have been formulated without having a data set on the number of people who stand to benefit from it, while the BJP leaders go about claiming from time to time that scores of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh are settled in India.

The post From the horse’s mouth: MHA releases data on deportations and illegal immigration appeared first on SabrangIndia.