"Does Centre Want Border Wall Like US?" Top Court On Illegal Immigrants

The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Centre whether it wanted to build a border wall like in the US to prevent illegal immigrants from entering the country.

The top court outlined the "same legacy of cultural and linguistic heritage" shared by Bengali and Punjabi speaking Indians with the neighbouring countries, and speaking the same language but divided by borders.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Joymalya Bagchi, and Vipul M Pancholi went on to ask the Centre to apprise it about the standard operating procedures (SOP) adopted by the governments in deporting illegal migrants, especially to Bangladesh.

The top court also impleaded the Gujarat government as a party in the matter.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, objected to the petition filed by the West Bengal Migrant Welfare Board alleging detention of Bengali-speaking migrant workers on suspicion of being Bangladeshi nationals and said no aggrieved parties were present before the court.

"This court should not entertain petitions filed by these organisations and associations, which may be supported by some state governments. There are no aggrieved parties before the court. We know how some state governments thrive on illegal immigrants. Demographic changes have become a serious issue," he said.

The bench told Mehta that those aggrieved were perhaps unable to reach the top court for want of resources.

Mehta, referring to advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner board and other NGOs, said such "public spirited persons" must help them in approaching the court besides helping people in the US, where the issue of illegal immigration was big.

Justice Bagchi subsequently asked Mehta, "Do you want to build a border wall like in America to prevent illegal immigrants from entering India?" Mehta replied, "Certainly not, but there are no individual complainants. How can the Union of India reply to the vague allegations made in the petition? Let some individual come saying I am being pushed out. We are trying to ensure immigrants don't eat away at our resources. We can't go by media reports. There are agents who facilitate illegal entry into the country." Justice Bagchi then told Mehta, "There are questions of national security, integrity of the nation, and, as you said, preservation of our resources. One needs to remember that at the same time, we have a legacy of common heritage, and in (West) Bengal and Punjab, language is the same, and borders divide the country. We want the Union to clarify its position on the issue." Bhushan alleged that Bengali-speaking persons were being picked up and forcefully pushed into Bangladesh.

"This has very drastic consequences...sometimes BSF people say you run to the other side, or we will shoot you. Similarly, the Border Guard of Bangladesh also threatens and says if you don't run to the other side, they will shoot," Bhushan said.

Referring to the case of a pregnant woman, who was pushed into Bangladesh and whose habeas corpus petition is pending before the Calcutta High Court, Bhushan sought the interim relief through a direction to states not to forcefully push migrant workers into Bangladesh till an authority decides on their nationality.

Justice Bagchi then underlined a distinction between a person trying to enter the country illegally and those who were within the Indian landmass and said that for those on the inside, certain procedures needed to be followed.

The bench sought clarification on the issue, referring to a plea which said people who spoke Bengali were presumed to be foreigners.

Assuring language was not the basis for deportation, Mehta offered to file a reply to the petition and urged that the matter be heard along with the Rohingya case pending in the court.

Justice Kant asked Mehta to file the replies in both cases.

Mehta then pointed out that most European countries were facing the issue of illegal immigrants and called it "really worrisome".

Agreeing with the contention, the bench called it a complicated issue as some countries welcomed immigrants while others opposed them.

Bhushan, earlier in the hearing, informed the bench that despite notices issued by the court on August 14 to nine states, replies were not filed.

He pointed to the habeas corpus petition filed by family members of a pregnant woman who has now been detained in Bangladesh and said that the Calcutta High Court has adjourned the case, as the matter is pending here.

The bench urged the high court to take up the matter expeditiously and clarified that pendency of these proceedings would not come in the way of the high court adjudicating the habeas corpus petition.

On August 14, the top court refused to pass any interim order on the PIL with regard to the detention of alleged Bangladeshi nationals.

The PIL said, "Instant petition challenges the legality of such detentions of migrant workers, particularly in light of the Ministry of Home Affairs. Letter dated May 2, 2025, which authorises inter-state verification and detention of suspected illegal immigrants." The plea said migrant workers from West Bengal, predominantly employed in low-income and informal sectors in various states, are facing systemic social exclusion based on linguistic grounds, economic insecurity, and precarious living conditions in detainer states.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)